ISSN: 1543-9518

Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP): A Comprehensive Metric for Evaluating Modern Soccer Goalkeepers

Authors: Daniel J. Marcolongo1, Bret R. Myers2

1Graduate of Sports Industry Management Program, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA

2Department of Management and Operations, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Bret R, Myers, Ph.D.

Department of Management and Operations

Villanova School of Business

800 E Lancaster Avenue

Villanova, PA 19085

[email protected]

Daniel J. Marcolongo is a 2025 graduate of Georgetown University’s Sports Industry Management masters program. His focus is in soccer analytics, which he developed as a collegiate soccer player and lifelong student of the game.

Bret R. Myers, Ph.D. is a Professor of Practice in the Department of Management and Operations in the Villanova School of Business. His research interests focus on sports analytics, specifically, in the areas of team evaluation and managerial decision-making. He also is an active Analytics Consultant with 10+ years of experience working with professional teams and other sports organizations.

ABSTRACT 

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a comprehensive metric for evaluating modern soccer goalkeepers that accounts for both defensive and offensive responsibilities. Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP) was constructed using publicly available data from the English Premier League, incorporating shot-stopping, cross-stopping, sweeping, and distribution metrics. Analysis of 70 observations of goalkeeper performance revealed a moderate positive correlation between TGP and team success (r = 0.474, p < 0.001), with TGP explaining 22.5% of variance in expected team points per game (3 points for win/1 point for draw/0 points for loss). A one-unit increase in TGP corresponded to 1.75-4.64 additional expected points over a 38-match season. Year-over-year analysis showed moderate consistency in goalkeeper performance as measured by TGP. These findings suggest TGP effectively captures goalkeeper contribution to team success while accounting for the evolving multidimensional nature of the position. TGP provides a data-driven framework for recruitment, talent identification, and tactical planning that aligns with the demands of modern soccer.

Key Words: soccer analytics, goalkeeper metrics, player evaluation, player development

INTRODUCTION 

The goalkeeper is a unique position in sports. The player is often isolated from the rest of the team as the last line of defense. They even have different equipment from the rest of the team. In hockey, soccer, and more, one can immediately distinguish a goalkeeper from their teammates (3, 5). It leads to a feeling that the goalkeeper is isolated from the rest of the team. But no one is an island. There have been times when goalkeepers have done more than just protect their goal, which has been seen prominently in soccer (13).

This has been supported by several studies into the position. A study using machine learning algorithms showed that the difference between what they called elite and sub-elite goalkeepers was their ability with their feet (11). This suggests that the position has evolved so much that shot stopping is not even a goalkeeper’s main priority at the world’s best clubs. This was far from the only study to suggest that goalkeepers have seen an increase in their responsibilities. Goalkeepers are asked to do a lot more than just save shots in today’s game (13, 19). Soccer is not the only sport where this has occurred.

From roughly the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, certain hockey goaltenders had a similar task. The most notable was Martin Brodeur. The New Jersey Devils, Brodeur’s team, employed a strategy called a neutral zone trap. The trap utilized a goalkeeper’s ability outside of the net to limit their opponent’s scoring chances. The Devils won three Stanley Cup titles from 1994 to 2003 with this strategy before the NHL introduced a new rule which severely limited what a goalkeeper could do outside of making saves (5).

In soccer, a goalkeeper is the only player on the team who can touch the ball with their hands and the player can only do this inside the 18-yard box (2). Historically, this led to goalkeepers not playing with their feet at all. But as the game evolved, this began to change, helped along by a rule change after the 1990 World Cup. The 1990 World Cup is considered one of the worst World Cups of all time due to the boring play. Part of the reason for the dullness was the goalkeepers who would waste time by holding the ball as long as legally allowed (14).

To combat this, the back-pass rule was introduced. This established the rule that goalkeepers could not pick up the ball if a player on their team passed it to them (14). With the change introduced to the game, it made goalkeepers’ ability to play with their feet more important (1). Following the success of goalkeepers like Manuel Neuer and Ederson, a goalkeeper’s distribution has become an essential skill (16-17). It is to the point that in some development teams, such as Chelsea, goalkeepers are judged more for their passing than their saves (4). Goalkeepers need to do so much more than just stop shots. However, that idea still hasn’t taken hold.

There is no way to rank soccer goalkeepers in a way that accounts for what they do with the ball. There isn’t even a statistic to accurately rank a goalkeeper defensively. Some statistics individually look at saves, cross-stopping, and sweeping, but no statistics takes all those aspects into account (6). In fact, some awards recognize players for a single performance statistic. For example, the Premier League Golden Glove award is given to the goalkeeper who has had the most ‘clean sheets’ (i.e., a game where they did not allow a goal) (10). The way goalkeepers are ranked has not kept up with the times. There should be a new statistic that accurately rates a goalkeeper based on everything they have to do, their Total Goalkeeper Performance.

The purpose of this study is to develop and advance a comprehensive metric for evaluating modern soccer goalkeepers that captures both their defensive and offensive responsibilities. First, the study outlines the methodology, including the acquisition of player performance data from the English Premier League for men’s professional soccer. Second, the offensive and defensive statistics used to construct the Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP) metric are defined, and the procedures for calculating these statistics are detailed. Third, the data analysis plan—featuring correlation analysis and regression modeling—is described. The results are then presented and interpreted, followed by the study’s conclusions. Finally, the practical applications of this metric within sports analytics, particularly in organized soccer, are discussed.

METHODS 

Dataset and Sampling

The data used in the paper spans eight seasons from the Premier League (2017-2018 through 2024-2025), a period where modern goalkeeper statistics are publicly available. All of the data comes from FBRef.com, with the exception of the data on punches which came from the Premier League’s website. In all, 70 goalkeepers were examined.

TGP features several different parts of a goalkeeper’s responsibilities. These can be divided into defensive and offensive statistics. Based on the data available the following performance statistics are used to construct TGP.

Defensive Statistics

Defensively, the main responsibility a goalkeeper has is shot stopping, making saves to prevent goals, but that’s not their only task. Goalkeepers also must defend the goal when balls come into their area. This can be from either crosses that a goalkeeper must deal with inside the 18-yard box or passes that force a goalkeeper to leave the box (18). These skills will be called cross-stopping and sweeping.

  1. Shot Stopping

Shot stopping will be measured with expected goals (xG). xG tracks how likely a goal is to be scored from the moment it is struck on a scale of 0-1 with a better shot being ranked closer to 1 (8). To make this stat useful for a goalkeeper, one must track how much xG a goalkeeper faces and then subtract the total number of goals allowed to get the post-shot (PS) expected goals minus goals allowed (GA). In order to standardize this for all goalkeepers, the statistic will be converted into a per 90 minutes through using the minutes played by each goalkeeper (PSxG-GA/90).

2. Cross Stopping

Cross Stopping is another skill needed to be quantified. Goalkeepers typically face several crosses being put into their box during a game. The best way to stop a cross is to claim it, catching the cross before the opposition can get to it. Punching a cross away can also be beneficial but is not preferable to catching as the ball could go back to the opposition but it is still preferable to leaving the cross to the opposition (9). When making cross-stopping into a statistic, one must factor in both crosses claimed (CC), crosses punched (CP), and total crosses faced (TC), but claiming and punching crosses are not equal.. Because of that, TGP weighs a punch as half of a claim when measuring cross-stopping. The final stat to measure cross stopping for TGP is: Cross Stopping = (CC+.5xCP)/TC.

3. Sweeping

Sweeping is the easiest of the three defensive skills to quantify. The statistic – defensive actions outside of the penalty area – measures sweeping well. This tracks how often a goalkeeper comes outside of his goal to help his team (6). The more often a goalkeeper does this, the better they are at sweeping. To fairly measure these statistics in comparison, it must be looked at on a per-90-minute basis as well. TGP will use defensive actions outside the penalty area per 90 (DAOP/90) minutes to measure sweeping.

From an interview with US International goalkeeper Tyler Miller, shot-stopping is the most important, followed by cross-stopping, then sweeping (12). TGP will weigh the skills 3:2:1 in that order. The stats will then be added together to make a defensive score.

Offensive Statistics

Days 1-4 focused on primary lift progression (Front Squat, Bench Press, Deadlift, Overhead Press) with integrated plyometric, conditioning, and movement quality components. Day 5 emphasized pulling strength and unilateral work. Day 6 focused on coordination, explosive power, and metabolic conditioning. All days included Tabata rowing (20 seconds work/10 seconds rest × 8 rounds) for conditioning stimulus and mental toughness development.

  1. Pass Completion Percentage (in buildup)

Offensive skills are more difficult to track due to the limitations of data on goalkeepers’ offensive abilities. One skill to track is a goalkeeper’s ability in buildup, making short passes to help his team up the field. In addition, a goalkeeper’s ability to make decisive passes that can start an attack on his team is important as well. The best widely available statistic to track a goalkeeper’s ability in buildup is completion percentage (PC) , how accurate they are as a passer.

2. Long Pass Completion Percentage

Similarly, long pass completion percentage (LP) shows how effective a goalkeeper is with long passes that are more likely to lead to an attack (6). Both statistics, completion percentage and long pass completion percentage, will be weighed equally to make an offensive score.

Component Weighting and Possession-Based Adjustments

The TGP metric is a weighted average of offensive and defensive scores.  However, weights are conditionally applied based on possession characteristics of the team. Teams with more possession tend to take more advantage of the offensive skills of the goalkeeper through more time with the ball. Meanwhile, teams with less of the ball have much less of a use for an offensively minded goalkeeper. (18). Because of that, possession, the statistic for how much of the ball a team has per game, is a way to weigh how important a goalkeeper’s offensive skills are for a team (6).

To ensure that the statistic is applicable across different seasons, a player’s score in different statistics will be weighed against the league’s average score. This includes the league average scores on shot-stopping (μPSxG – GA/90), cross stopping (μ(CC + .5CP)/TC)), sweeping (μDAOP/90), pass completion percentage(μPC), and long pass completion percentage (μLP).

For a team with 62.5 percent possession (P) or more, a number chosen for ease of calculations though it is a number only the most ball dominant teams can reach, the offensive and defensive scores will be weighted equally. For a team with 37.5 percent possession or below, a number chosen for the same reasons but for the least ball dominant teams, it will be weighted 3:1 defensive score to the offensive score (7). For example a player on a team with 62.5% possession or more his defensive and offensive scores would remain the same for calculations. In a team with 37.5% possession or below his defensive score would be multiplied by 1.5 and his offensive score multiplied by 0.5. For a team with between 37.5 and 62.5 percent possession the weight would slide between those ratios. For example, in a team with .531 percent possession a goalkeeper would have his defensive score multiplied by 1.188 and his offensive score multiplied by .812.

The overall TGP formula for a goalkeeper per match can be expressed as follows:

 TGP = (DS*(2 – (2P – 0.25))) + (OS*(2P – 0.25))) / 2

where:
 DS = 1.47*(((PSxG – GA/90 + 0.52)/(μPSxG – GA/90 + 0.52)*5.09) + 0.97*(((CC + .5CP)/TC)/μ(CC + .5CP)/TC)*5.15) + 0.62*((DAOP/90)/μ(DAOP/90)*4.02) OS = (0.90*((PC*/μPC*)/10.12) + 1.01*((LP*/μLP*)/9.92)/(4/3)

*μ represented the mean levels of the performance metric by league.

Here is a sample calculation for a high performing goalkeeper with the following measures:

Nick Pope 2023-24: TGP=(19.37*1.206 + 16.05*0.794) / 2 = 18.03

DS=1.47*(.58/0.44)*5.09 + (0.97*0.98)/0.83)*5.15) + 0.62*(1.87/1.29)*4.02=19.37

OS=(0.99(76.9/72.9)*10.12+1.01*(47.9/44.27)*9.92)/(4/3)=16.05

Here is a sample calculation for a low performing goalkeeper with the following measures:

James Trafford 2023-24: TGP (14*1.302 + 12.09*.698) / 2 = 13.36

DS=1.47*(0.31/0.44)*5.09 + 0.97*(0.95/0.83)*5.15) + 0.62*(1.54/1.29)*4.02=14.00

OS=(0.99(65.5/72.9)*10.12+1.01*(32/44.27)*9.92)/(4/3)=12.16

The formula is created with a score of 15 to be the league average for every season. The numbers each individual statistic is multiplied by is there to ensure that no stat is weighted more than any other.

Analyses and Visualizations

Three key areas in this study are explored: 1) Relationship between TGP and Team Success, 2) Individual TGP Rankings and Year-Over-Year Repeatability, 3) TGP vs. Player Market Value. In order to evaluate Team Success, Team EPL Points per Game (PPG) will be used (3 points for team 1, 1 point for team draw, 0 points for team loss). Python is used to carry out correlation and regression analyses exploring the relationship between TGP and Team Success based on n = 70 qualifying goalkeepers from the EPL. Specifically, the scipy library is used for correlation analysis and statsmodels library is used for regression analysis. Furthermore, data visualization is carried out using Python’s matplotlib library. Correlation analysis and data visualization (also from Python) are also used to explore year-over-year repeatability of TGP scores based on n = 10 qualifying goalkeepers, Similar methods are also used to help examine the relationship between TGP and Player Market value.

RESULTS

Relationship between TGP and Team Success

In order to assess the relationship between TGP and team success, a Pearson correlation analysis was performed comparing TGP to PPG for 70 observations across the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 English Premier league seasons. The data set is representative of 39 distinct goalkeepers that qualify by having played at least 10 matches.

The analysis revealed a moderative positive correlation between TGP and PPG (r = 0.474 and p < 0.001). This indicates that goalkeepers with higher TGP scores tend to play for teams that earn more points per match. Figure 1 displays the scatterplot with a fitted regression line which demonstrates the positive, linear trend between TGP and team performance. While correlation does not imply causation, the statistically significant relationship suggests that the multidimensional TGP metric captures aspects of goalkeeper performance that contributes directly to winning.

Figure 1

Note. Scatterplot depicting relationship Points per Game and TGP across 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 seasons in the English Premier League.

Furthermore, a simple linear regression was performed to help understand the magnitude of the contribution to team success. The analysis was performed using the statsmodels library in Python and the results are included in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Note. Ordinary Least Squared Regression Results for TGP vs. Team Performance

The model was statistically significant, F(1,68)=19.74, p<0.001, and explained 22.5% of the variance in PPG (R² = 0.225). The resulting regression equation was:

PPG=0.143+0.084×TGP

The TGP coefficient was positive and significant (β=0.084, t=4.44, p1<0.001), with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.046 to 0.122. To put it more in practical terms, every 1 unit increase in TGP is expected to increase points per game from 0.046 to 0.122. In the context of a 38 match EPL season, a 1 unit increase in TGP exhibited by GKs would lead to 1.75 to 4.64 additional points.

Individual TGP Rankings and Year-over-Year Analysis

The Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP) results for the 2024–2025 Premier League season are summarized in Table 2 below. The top-performing goalkeeper was Guglielmo Vicario of Tottenham Hotspur, who achieved a TGP score of 19.93 across 24 league appearances. Based on the established regression model, this corresponds to an expected points-per-game (PPG) value of approximately 1.81. In contrast, Alphonse Areola of West Ham recorded the lowest TGP score of 11.50 over 26 matches, translating to an expected PPG of roughly 1.10. When extrapolated over a full 38-match season, the difference in expected point contribution between a high-performing and low-performing goalkeeper equates to 26.98 points (68.78 vs. 41.80). While overall team success depends on multiple factors—including defensive structure and attacking capabilities—this analysis demonstrates that goalkeeper performance, as captured by TGP, is a significant independent driver of team outcomes.

Table 2

2024-2025 TGP Rankings in the EPL

RankingPlayerClubEffective Matches played (per 90)TGP
1Guglielmo VicarioTottenham2019.93
2EdersonMan City21.818.95
3Nick PopeNewcastle2318.28
4Robert SánchezChelsea2717.92
5Arijanet MuricIpswich1816.93
6David RayaArsenal3316.78
7AlissonLiverpool22.916
8Mark FlekkenBrentford31.415.87
9Kepa ArrizabalagaBournemouth2615.7
10Emiliano MartínezAston Villa3115.57
11Jordan PickfordEverton3314.98
12Łukasz FabiańskiWest Ham11.914.54
13Mads HermansenLeicester25.514.43
14Stefan OrtegaMan City11.214.12
15Bart VerbruggenBrighton3114.1
16André OnanaMan United3213.53
17Bernd LenoFulham3313.45
18Dean HendersonCrystal Palace3313.38
19José SáWolves2512.37
20Aaron RamsdaleSouthampton2512
21Matz SelsNottingham Forest3211.68
22Alphonse AreolaWest Ham21.111.5

There is also good evidence of the repeatability of TGP ratings year over year. That is – there is slight to moderate positive correlation between seasons. Table 3 represents the TGP performance of 10 GK who had qualifying minutes in the 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 seasons.

Table 3

Year-over year TGP performances of qualifying Goalkeepers

Player24-25 TGP23-24 TGP22-23 TGP
Emiliano Martínez15.5720.9819.42
Ederson18.9519.5316.57
Nick Pope18.2818.0317.41
Alisson16.0016.0620.72
David Raya16.7816.6717.72
Robert Sánchez17.9217.3313.96
Bernd Leno13.4514.4718.67
Jordan Pickford14.9816.5514.88
José Sá12.3717.4312.96
Dean Henderson13.3811.7012.90

To accompany this table, Figure 3 below shows a correlation matrix that summarizes the strength of the pairwise association between each of the last three seasons in terms of TGP performance.

Figure 3

Note. Correlation matrix of TGP performance for 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025 seasons

TGP vs. Player Market Value

Player evaluators and scouts need to be in tune with the market value of players. One common method is to use Transfermkt (https://www.transfermarkt.com/), a highly reputable site used to estimate player market value based on performance, potential, age, and other market trends. Accordingly, the player market values from the recent 2024-2025 season were collected and paired against TGP values. The relationship between the two variables is depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Note. TGP vs. Player Market Value for the 2024-2025 season.

As you can see, there is a baseline positive relationship between TGP and player market value. The scatterplot also labels the player with a color-coding system such that players above the expectation of performance by salary are in green, while those at expectation are in yellow, and those below expectation in red. Given the typical club operates on player budgets for wages, it is a common goal to try to acquire players that deliver at or above expectations in terms of performance.

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of Findings

The results of this study provide compelling evidence for the utility of the Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP) metric as a comprehensive evaluation tool for modern soccer goalkeepers. The correlation (r = 0.474, p < 0.001) between TGP and PPG is evidence of a moderate, positive association between goalkeeping performance (as measured by TGP) and team performance. Furthermore, it can be said that 22.5% of the variation in PPG can be explained by the TGP metric. Given that there are 11 players on the field that contribute to team performance, 22.5% in the goalkeeping position signifies how critical the position is to team success.

The regression model also indicates that a single unit increase in TGP corresponds to an additional 1.75 to 4.64 points over a 38-match season. This finding quantifies the tangible impact a high-performing goalkeeper can have on a team’s league position. The substantial 26.98-point difference in expected contribution between the highest and lowest TGP scores in our sample (Vicario at 19.93 vs. Areola at 11.50) underscores the potential competitive advantage teams can gain through goalkeeper selection and development.

The year-over-year analysis reveals moderate consistency in goalkeeper performance as measured by TGP, suggesting that while the metric captures some stable aspects of goalkeeper ability, performance also fluctuates due to contextual factors such as team defensive structure, managerial approach, and opposition quality. This temporal stability adds credibility to TGP as a metric that identifies genuine skill rather than merely capturing random variation.

Tactical or Practical Implications

The TGP metric offers several practical applications for soccer professionals. First, it provides a data-driven framework for recruitment and talent identification that aligns with the multidimensional demands of the modern goalkeeper position. Clubs can use TGP to identify goalkeepers whose specific skill profiles match their tactical approach, rather than relying on traditional metrics that may not capture relevant abilities.

For teams with high possession percentages, our findings suggest that investing in goalkeepers with strong distribution skills yields tangible benefits. Conversely, teams that typically have less possession might prioritize shot-stopping and cross-claiming abilities. This contextual approach to goalkeeper evaluation enables more nuanced decision-making in the transfer market. Our analysis shows how TGP can be paired with player valuations, which can enable front offices to make smarter decisions.

The year-over-year analysis provides insights for player development specialists. The moderate temporal stability of TGP scores suggests that while goalkeeper performance has a skill component that persists across seasons, there is also room for improvement through targeted training. Development programs could use TGP component scores to identify specific areas for improvement in young goalkeepers.

From a tactical perspective, managers can use TGP to inform game strategy. Understanding the relative strengths of opposition goalkeepers across different dimensions could influence pressing approaches, crossing strategies, and shot selection. Similarly, awareness of one’s own goalkeeper’s TGP profile might influence defensive organization and build-up patterns.

Limitations

Several limitations must be acknowledged when interpreting these results. First, while our dataset includes three seasons of Premier League data, it represents only one league.. Goalkeeper requirements may differ substantially across leagues with different tactical tendencies, and the TGP weightings established here may not generalize perfectly to other contexts.

Second, our reliance on publicly available data limits the granularity of our analysis. More sophisticated tracking data could provide additional insights into goalkeeper positioning, command of area, and communication—aspects that are difficult to quantify with event data alone. The offensive component of TGP is particularly constrained by data availability, as metrics like pass completion percentage do not fully capture the quality and tactical significance of goalkeeper distribution.

Third, while we adjusted for team possession, other contextual factors like defensive structure, opposition quality, and score state may influence goalkeeper performance in ways not fully accounted for in the TGP metric. A goalkeeper playing behind a well-organized defense may face fewer high-quality shots, potentially affecting their PSxG-GA/90 component.

Finally, our weighting system, while informed by intuitive insight, introduces a subjective element to the metric. Different experts might propose alternative weightings based on their philosophical approach to the position. Future research could explore the sensitivity of TGP to different weighting schemes or develop data-driven approaches to component weighting. Despite these limitations, TGP represents a significant advancement in goalkeeper evaluation methodology and provides a foundation for future refinements as data availability and analytical techniques continue to evolve.

CONCLUSION 

This study demonstrates that the Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP) metric is a robust and comprehensive tool for evaluating modern goalkeepers. By integrating both defensive and offensive contributions into a single, possession-adjusted framework, TGP captures the multidimensional nature of the position more effectively than existing measures. The results show a clear and statistically meaningful relationship between TGP and team success, as well as moderate year-over-year consistency, establishing TGP as a credible and practical benchmark for goalkeeper performance.

TGP should be recognized as a new standard for goalkeeper evaluation. It provides clubs, coaches, and analysts with a powerful framework for recruitment, player development, and tactical decision-making. The metric moves beyond traditional, outdated statistics such as clean sheets and instead delivers a data-driven, holistic assessment that reflects the modern demands of the position.

While future refinements—particularly improved offensive data, expanded league coverage, and longitudinal tracking—will further strengthen its utility, the evidence presented here is clear: TGP represents a decisive advancement in goalkeeper analytics. By adopting this framework, the soccer industry can better align evaluation practices with the realities of today’s game and gain a competitive edge in identifying and developing top goalkeepers.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

TGP provides practical value for multiple stakeholders in professional soccer. For technical directors and recruitment teams, it offers a multidimensional framework for goalkeeper evaluation that aligns with modern tactical demands, enabling more informed transfer decisions by identifying goalkeepers whose specific skill profiles match a team’s playing style. For coaches and tactical analysts, TGP components can inform game strategy by highlighting opposition goalkeeper weaknesses across different dimensions. Teams might adjust pressing approaches against goalkeepers with poor distribution or increase crossing volume against those who struggle with aerial control. Player development specialists can utilize TGP component scores to create targeted training programs addressing specific goalkeeper weaknesses, allowing youth academies to track development progress across all relevant goalkeeper skills rather than focusing exclusively on traditional shot-stopping metrics.

This type of expanded analysis has proven transformative in other sports. In American football, quarterback evaluation has evolved far beyond simple counting statistics such as touchdowns or interceptions. Advanced metrics like Expected Points Added (EPA), Completion Percentage Over Expectation (CPOE), and QBR now provide a multidimensional assessment of quarterback decision-making, efficiency, and contextual performance. In baseball, the introduction of Wins Above Replacement (WAR) revolutionized how players are valued, combining offensive, defensive, and baserunning contributions into a single comprehensive number. These examples illustrate the power of moving past one-dimensional measures to holistic frameworks that better reflect player impact.

Soccer goalkeepers are a natural candidate for this type of approach, but they are not alone. Other sports positions that blend defensive and offensive responsibilities—such as catchers in baseball, liberos in volleyball, or goaltenders in lacrosse and hockey—could benefit from similar metrics that capture their multifaceted roles. Expanding evaluation frameworks in this way allows teams across sports to more accurately quantify player value, align talent acquisition with tactical systems, and design targeted development programs that reflect the true demands of the position.

REFERENCES 

  1. Alencar, M. (2024, Mar 20). Higuita: Scorpion kick changed football forever: Rene Higuita’s  acrobatic clearance helped usher in new era of ball-playing goalkeepers, he tells Mauricio Alencar. City A.M. https://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/higuita-scorpion-kick-changed-football-forever/docview/2968727496/se-2?accountid=11091
  2. Bate, A. (2021, May 26). Stanley Menzo interview: Goalkeeping pioneer who changed the game under Johan Cruyff at Ajax. Sky Sports. https://www.skysports.com/football/story-telling/11946/12311915
  3. Bugda, G., & Swann, S. (2024, July 9). Who is the “goalkeeper” for your organization? Medium. https://twodummies.medium.com/who-is-the-goalkeeper-for-your-organization-aa6b53838f9f
  4. Carmichael-Brown, S. [Hashtag United]. (2024, January 9). CHELSEA GOALKEEPER TED CURD RECALLED! [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCTnNQfWPY
  5. Diamos, J. (2005, September 16). Hockey; new rule will take a weapon away from Brodeur. HOCKEY – New Rule Will Take a Weapon Away From Brodeur – NYTimes.com. http://web.archive.org/web/20131101025522/https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10616F835550C758DDDA00894DD404482
  6. FBRef. (2025). Premier League goalkeeper stats. FBref.com.  https://fbref.com/en/comps/9/keepersadv/Premier-League-Stats#all_stats_keeper_adv
  7. FBRef. (2025). Premier League stats. FBRef.com https://fbref.com/en/comps/9/Premier-League-Stats
  8. FBRef. (2019). XG explained. FBref.com.  https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/
  9. FIFA. (2025, January 7). Goalkeeping: Dealing with crosses from corners. FIFA Training Centre. https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/game/tournaments/fu17wwcfu17wwc-24/2024/goalkeeping-dealing-with-crosses.php
  10. Garrick, O. (2024, May 19). Arsenal’s David Raya wins 2023-24 premier league golden         glove award. The New York Times .https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5495358/2024/05/19/david-raya-arsenal-golden-glove/
  11. Jamil, M., Phatak, A., Mehta, S., Beato, M., Memmert, D., & Connor, M. (2021, November 22). Using multiple machine learning algorithms to classify elite and sub-elite goalkeepers in professional men’s football. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01187-5#Sec7
  12. Marcolongo, D., & Miller, T. (2025, March 27). Interview with Tyler Miller. personal.
  13. Obetko, M., Peráček, P., Mikulič, M., & Babic, M. (2022). Technical–tactical profile of an elite soccer goalkeeper. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 22(1), 38-46.             https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2022.01005
  14. Patrikarakos, D. (2009). Defining Moment: The back-pass rule livens up football, 1992. FT.Com, https://proxy.library.georgetown.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/defining-moment-back-pass-rule-livens-up-football/docview/229164255/se-2?accountid=11091
  15. Premier League. (2025). Most punches – premier league goalkeeper stats. https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/players/punches
  16. Rose, G. (2025, January 8). Manchester City News: How Pep Guardiola has influenced goalkeeper evolution in English football. BBC Sport. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyvw8xlv4lo
  17. Schmidt, C., & Hopkins, O. (2021, April 7). Manuel Neuer: Record-chaser and revolutionary. Opta Analyst. https://theanalyst.com/2021/04/manuel-neuer-record-chaser-and-revolutionary
  18. Smith, A. (2023, August 15). Best goalkeeper in the Premier League revealed: Andre Onana, David Raya and Robert Sanchez transfers analysed. Sky Sports. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12933578/best-goalkeeper-in-the-premier-league-revealed-andre-onana-david-raya-and-robert-sanchez-transfers-analysed
  19. Yam, D. (2019). A data driven goalkeeper evaluation framework. MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. https://www.sloansportsconference.com/research-papers/a-data-driven-goalkeeper-evaluation-framework

2025-12-03T09:26:11-06:00May 20th, 2026|General, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science|Comments Off on Total Goalkeeper Performance (TGP): A Comprehensive Metric for Evaluating Modern Soccer Goalkeepers
Read More

Identifying Self-Awareness of Leadership Abilities Using 360 Degree Feedback Method: A Case Study of Collegiate Rowers

Authors: Stephen Cadoux1, Kimberly Shaffer2

1Department of Clinical Psychology, Antioch University New England, Keene, NH, USA

2Department of Sport & Exercise Science, Barry University, Miami, FL, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Kimberly Shaffer

[email protected]

Stephen Cadoux, MS, is a Clinical Psychology Doctoral student at Antioch University New England. His research interests focus on sports neuropsychology, leadership development, and neurocognitive effects of stress.

Kimberly Shaffer, Ph.D., CMPC is an Associate Professor and program director of the Sport, Exercise & Performance Psychology Program at Barry University. Kimberly’s areas of research interest include athlete identity, transition from sport & core values of performers. 

ABSTRACT 

Self-awareness is one of the most vital characteristics to effective leadership, yet it is a trait rarely measured within leaders. Without self-awareness, leaders place themselves in a position of weakness that can negatively impact their team’s performance. Using a Female NCAA Division II Rowing Team (n= 7), and their coaches (n=2) this study aimed to identify if captains of a collegiate athletic team are self-aware of their leadership abilities. The study was conducted via the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and a research technique known as the 360-degree feedback method. Teammates and coaches completed the MLQ about their team captain(s) leadership abilities. Meanwhile, the captain(s) rated their own leadership using the MLQ. Results from the three participant groups were compared to evaluate self-awareness (S-A) of the captain(s). S-A was determined if the Captain(s) self-reported scores are within the standard deviation of the scores of the Coaches and Teammates. Results suggested differences in the S-A of the two captains is, such that Captain X scores were found to be outside the SD of either the Coaches and/or the teammates in six of the twelve leadership subcategories, while Captain Y self-reported scores outside of their coaches and/or teammates SD on 4 different subcategories. The applied nature of this study is valuable for creating leadership programs within collegiate athletic departments and provides a quantitative model for assessing self-awareness in leadership.

Keywords: coaching, NCAA athletics, peer assessment

INTRODUCTION 

Leaders are critical to the functioning of any group, team, or organization. For teams to be successful, they require motivation, hard work, social and task cohesion, and swift decision making (1, 3, 8, 17). Over the past 60 years, there have been over 60 different leadership theories; each aiming to define leadership into distinct and unique concepts (8, 17). 

Presently, the most validated and widely used theory is the Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory (TTLT) (3). The TTLT involves dividing leadership into two areas: Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership (3). Avolio and Bass modified TTLT to include Passive/ Avoidance behavior (1).

According to TTLT Avoidant/ Passive leaders are more passive and reactive. Avoidant leaders “avoid specifying agreements, clarifying expectations, and providing goals and standards” (1). Individuals with this style can negatively impact those around them and hurt the team’s overall performance. Within Avoidant behavior, are two sections: Management-by-Exception: Passive (MBEP) and Laissez-Faire (LF). Individuals who are high in MBEP wait until an issue arises before acting while leaders high in LF go one step further and fail to ever intervene in issues (1).

The second major category of leadership within the TTLT is Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is based on exchanging rewards for goal completion, good performances, and desired behavior (3). These leaders clearly lay out the expectations they have for their subordinates, and they encourage their followers to perform to the best of their abilities (1). Transactional leadership is based on Contingent Reward (CR) and Management-by- Exception: Active (MBEA) (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Leaders’ high in CR offer rewards in exchange of one’s service; celebrating the accomplishments of their team and its members to reinforce positive behavior teams accomplishments Conversely, MBEA minded leaders focus on past failures, mistakes, and irregularities. These leaders set a specific standard that all members must meet and any deviation from this standard is confronted (1).

The third category of leadership in the TTLT is Transformational. Transformational leaders are viewed as the highest level of leaders (3). These individuals “connect with followers and appeal to their strengths in order to best challenge them to be more productive” (14, p. 62).

Avolio and Bass added “5 I’s” under the Transformational leadership (1). The 5 I’s are Idealized Attributes (IA), Idealized Behaviors (IB), Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), and Individual Consideration (IC; 1). Both IA and IB fall under the subset of Idealized Influence. Leaders with high Idealized Influence are leaders who consider others needs before their own and are people who others want to emulate (1). Inspirational Motivation (IM) leaders use their leadership to motivate those around them. Intellectual Stimulation (IS) leaders help fuel their follower’s intellectual mental efforts. They help their followers to be more innovative and creative as well as stimulate new ideas, thoughts, and solutions. Lastly, Individual Consideration (IC) leaders focus on their groups need for achievement and growth. They accomplish this by acting as a peer mentor and coaching figure to those around them (1).

The increase in leadership research has been primarily led by Industrial-Organizational psychology (I/O), focusing on improving for-profit businesses, personnel, and staff (5). In contrast, the field of sports has not received comparable levels of research attention or financial investment (16). This disparity has created several gaps in sport leadership research, particularly within the sub-category of leader self-awareness.

Self-awareness is arguably the most important aspect of leadership (9). Despite extensive leadership research in sports, self-awareness is rarely measured (7). Most leaders are not self-aware of their own abilities or talents (7). Without self-awareness, captains are at a disadvantage when it comes to leading their teams to victory. With the amount of money, time, and energy put into these sports teams, captains cannot have large flaws in their leadership.

While there are many ways to measure self-awareness, the 360 Degree Feedback method is not as widely used as it requires more empirical evidence. The 360 Degree Feedback method was designed for the use of providing business managers and executives more accurate feedback on their performance (5). This method involves having the leader (ratee) score their abilities on a survey or questionnaire. The organization then has several staff, peers, and supervisors anonymously complete that same survey about the ratee. This provides the organization with not only how the leader views themselves, but also how the rest of the organization and team view them. The organization can then provide the leader with structured feedback. Using 360-degree feedback has been found to provide more accurate feedback, enhance self-awareness, and can increase self-perceptions in individuals (4).

While the 360 Degree Feedback model is being utilized within the business world, the use of this method has also branched into other academic areas, including sport psychology.  Consultant groups, such as Amplos, have applied the method to identify development within coaches and athletes at various Power 5 athletic institutions (15). Although the method has proven successful in applied settings, it lacks validity in the scientific community and needs empirical evidence to further support its success.

The purpose of the proposed study is to use the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; 1), and the 360 Degree Feedback Method (6) to identify if collegiate team captains are self-aware (S-A) of their leadership abilities. This study explored three hypotheses: (1)Captains would rate themselves as having higher Transformational and Transactional Leadership as compared to the scores of the coaches and teammates. (2) Captains would rate themselves as having lower Avoidant Leadership as compared to the scores of the coaches and teammates. (3) Captains would have an inverse relationship between the scores of MBEA and MBEP.

METHODS 

Participants

Participants consisted of both male (n=1) and females (n=8) involved in a NCAA Division II rowing team located in South Florida. Ages varied within the three participant categories as both young collegiate athletes and older coaches participated in this study. The Coaches (n=2) had a mean age of 33.50 (SD= ±12.02), the Captains (n=2) had a mean age of 21.50 (SD= ±2.12), and the Teammates (n=5) had a mean age of 21.60 (SD= ±2.30). The Teammate group consisted of 5 participants; however, each Captain rated the other captain and were thus included in the “Teammate” participant group during data collection. With the captains included in the Teammate participant group, the Teammates (n=7) had a mean age of 21.14 (SD= ±2.03).

Procedures

The study began with participant recruitment. Recruitment was conducted via email. Upon recruitment of the rowing team, individual athletes, captains, and coaches were recruited as well. Once recruitment had completed, the study was conducted virtually via an online video call explanation session in which participants received all directions verbally. The PI gave a brief explanation of the purpose of the study, following initial instructions, the PI explained the directions for the consent form, the demographic questionnaire and the MLQ questionnaire (all of which were provided via an online Qualtrics survey link). Participants were instructed to complete one MLQ questionnaire form for each of their participating team captains. After completion of the study, participants were thanked for their time.

 Instruments

Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic questionnaires were created by the PI and were administered to all study participants. Each participant group had its own distinct demographic questionnaire. These questionnaires were used to gather additional data about the participants that the MLQ does not specifically ask for. This data included both personal and athletic information.

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

The shortened version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used (11). This 45-item self-reporting questionnaire is designed to assess an individual’s leadership abilities, leadership style, and the outcomes of their leadership (11).

The MLQ measures leadership by dividing the subject into three categories: Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership, and Passive/ Avoidant Leadership Within these three categories, the MLQ measures these styles using twelve subcategories. Transactional Leadership is divided into CR and MBEA (11). Transformational Leadership is made up of IA, IB, IM, IS, and IC (1). Passive/ Avoidant Leadership is divided into MBEP and LF (1). The last area that the MLQ measures is the outcomes of leadership; this is separated into Extra Effort (EE), Effectiveness (EFF), and Satisfaction (SAT). The MLQ uses a five point-Likert scale ranging from zero (Not at all) to four (Frequently, if not always). The questionnaire’s Cronbach’s coefficient alphas range from 0.63 to 0.92 with an internal consistency above 0.70.

Data Analyses

All data was analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics program. A descriptive analysis was conducted to find the means and standard deviations of the self-reported scores. S-A is determined if the captain’s self-reported scores are within the standard deviation of the scores collected from their Coaches and Teammates (1, 11).

RESULTS

Captains
The two captains tested in this study will be labelled as “Captain X” and “Captain Y”. Captain X is an American citizen who has been rowing for 10 years. She has been Captain of her team for 1 year and was also the Captain of her High School rowing team. She believes that her team is highly successful and believes that she has directly influenced the performances of her team. She also describes herself as self-aware of her abilities. Captain Y is an international student studying in the United States. Captain Y has been rowing for only two years, not having rowed in high school. Captain Y also believes her team is highly successful and her leadership abilities directly influence the team’s overall results. She also describes herself as self-aware of her leadership abilities.


Coaches
The coaching staff consisted of a male, American head coach with 12 years of coaching experience and a female, Eastern European assistant coach with four years’ experience. Both Coaches have Coached Captain X for three years and Captain Y for two years. Both Coaches also believe that their team is having a successful season and that their Team Captains are a direct result of that success.


Captain X
As seen below in table 1, Captain X’s self-reported scores were found to be outside the SD range of the scores of their Coaches and/or Teammates in six of twelve leadership subcategories. The first is IM. Captain X (m=4, ±0) self-reported themselves as higher than the scores of the teammates (m=3.30, ±0.48), while the Coaches (m=3.12, ±1.24) rated Captain X between the two groups. Within Intellectual Stimulation, Captain X (m=3.75, ±0) rated themselves higher than both the Coaches (m=2.87, ±0.53) the Teammates (m=3.30, ±0.44). In CR, Captain X (m=3.50, ±0) rated themselves as higher than the Coaches (m=2.25, ±0) while their teammates (m=3.05, ±0.51) scored between them. In MBEA, Captain X (m=2.25, ±0) ranked themselves as higher than the Coaches (m=1.87, ±0.17) but were not outside the scores provided by the Teammates (m=1.65, ±1.16). In EE, Captain X (m=4.00, ±0) scored higher than the rankings of the Teammates (m=3.13, ±0.69) while the Coaches (m=3.16, ±1.17) scored between both of the groups. The last category is EFF, where Captain X (m=4.00, ±0) rated themself higher than the SD of the Teammates (m=3.30, ±0.48). The Teammates scores were not outside the SD range of the Coaches (m=3.37, ±0.88).

Table 1

Mean scores and Standard Deviation’s for Captain X’s MLQ 360-Degree Feedback Test

 IA (SD)IB (SD)IM* (SD)IS* (SD)IC (SD)CR* (SD)MBEA* (SD)MBEP (SD)LF (SD)EE* (SD)EFF* (SD)SAT (SD)
Captain X3.50 (0)3.50 (0)4.00 (0)3.75 (0)2.75 (0)3.50 (0)2.25 (0)1.00 (0)0.25 (0)4.00 (0)4.00 (0)4.00 (0)
Coaches (n=2)3.12 (0.88)3.37 (0.88)3.12 (1.24)2.87 (0.53)2.75 (0.70)2.25 (0)1.87 (0.17)1.25 (1.76)1.00 (1.41)3.16 (1.17)3.37 (0.88)3.25 (1.06)
Teammates (n=6)3.35 (0.57)3.50 (0.46)3.30 (0.48)3.30 (0.44)3.30 (0.77)3.05 (0.51)1.65 (1.16)1.08 (0.61)0.60 (0.57)3.13 (0.69)3.30 (0.48)3.40 (0.65)
Note: *Captains scores are outside the SD for one or both groups

Table 2

Mean scores and Standard Deviation’s for Captain Y’s MLQ 360-Degree Feedback Test

 
 IA (SD)IB* (SD)IM (SD)IS (SD)IC (SD)CR (SD)MBEA* (SD)MBEP* (SD)LF (SD)EE (SD)EFF (SD)SAT* (SD)
Captain Y2.75 (0)4.00 (0)3.50 (0)3.00 (0)3.00 (0)2.75 (0)2.25 (0)0.25 (0)0.75 (0)3.00 (0)3.25 (0)4.00 (0)
Coaches (n=2)3.25 (0.70)3.37 (0.53)3.50 (0.70)3.12 (0.17)3.12 (0.17)3.25 (0.70)2.87 (0.53)0.75 (1.06)0.50 (0.70)3.50 (0.70)3.50 (0.70)3.00 (2.00)
Teammates (n=6)2.91 (0.54)3.33 (0.30)3.08 (0.78)2.70 (0.96)3.33 (0.46)3.04 (0.88)2.54 (1.30)1.00 (0.61)0.62 (0.41)3.27 (0.57)3.33 (0.43)3.08 (0.37)
Note: *Captains scores are outside the SD for one or both groups

Figure 1

Captain X 360-Degree Feedback Data

Figure 2

Captain Y 360-Degree Feedback Data

Captain Y

As seen in Table 2, Captain Y’s self-reported scores are outside the SD range of the reported scores of the Coaches and/or Teammates in only four of twelve leadership subcategories. The first is IB. Captain Y (m=4, ±0) rated themselves higher than both their Teammates (m=3.33, ±0.30) and Coaches (m=3.37, ±0.53). In MBEA, Captain Y (m=2.25, ±0) rated themselves below the SD of the Coaches (m=2.87, ±0.53). Another category of difference is MBEP. Captain Y (m=0.25, ±0) rated themselves lower than the SD of the teammates (m=1.00, ±0.61). Neither group’s scores were outside the SD provided by the Coaches (m=0.75, ±1.06). The last difference is in the subcategory of SAT. Captain Y (m=4.00, ±0) self-reported scores higher than the SD of both the Coaches (m=3.00, ±0) and Teammates (m=3.08, ±0.37).

DISCUSSION

The collected data suggests Captain Y and Captain X differ in their leadership strengths and level of S-A. Captain X scores were found to be outside the SD of either the Coaches and/or the teammates in six of the twelve leadership subcategories, while Captain Y self-reported scores outside of their coaches and/or teammates SD on 4 different subcategories. Captain X’s scores were outside the SD of both the Coaches and Teammates for only one subcategory, Leadership. While Captain Y had two subcategories, Idealized Behavior and Satisfaction, that were outside the SD range of both the Teammates and Coaches scores.

Most interesting is the evaluation of SD of scores. The SD for several Coach and Teammate scores varied greatly. An example of this wide-ranging SD can be found on Table 1 with the Coaches having a SD of 1.76 (m=1.25) on MBEP and on Table 2 with the Teammates having a SD of 1.30 (m= 2.53) on MBEA. These wide-ranging SD display a divide in the perspective the Coaches and Teammates have on the Captains. Captain X and Y scored different than the mean scores both the Coaches and Teammates in almost all of the Leadership subcategories. However, the large SDs kept the Captains within the range to be labeled “self-aware” according to Avolio and Bass (1). These large SDs argue neither the Coaches or Teammates were unified in their beliefs of the Captains. Some participants within their groups believed that their captains were excellent leaders who provided crucial support to their team. While some participants saw their captains as less effective and, sometimes, borderline detrimental to their teams. It furthers interest that the Coaches, with a group size of 2, were also divided on their Captains in several categories. While the data suggests that these Captains are self-aware of their leadership, this self-awareness does not come without scrutiny. This can be best seen in Figures 1 and 2.

Another interesting point is within Captain X and Y’s belief in the Outcomes of their Leadership. Represented in the MLQ as EE, EFF, and SAT, Captain X rated herself as a “4” for all three categories, while Captain Y rated herself as the following: 3 (EE), 3.25 (EFF), and 4 (SAT). While Captain X has stronger belief that their leadership causes more positive outcomes for their team than Captain Y, they each rated themselves as a “4” in satisfaction. Meaning, they each believe their Teammates and Coaches are satisfied with their leadership abilities. However, this cannot be the case due to the wide-ranging SD’s found in many subcategories. It can be inferred, even without major differences from both their Teammates and Coaches in the SAT category, Captains may be incorrect about their teammate’s opinions of their leadership. They believe their team celebrate their leadership, while there is not a unified belief on their abilities. In addition, a high level of perceived satisfaction may inhibit captains’ motivation to grow or further develop their leadership abilities, as they may mistakenly believe their current performance is sufficient. This tendency aligns with patterns of social loafing, where individuals reduce effort or avoid self-improvement when they perceive their contributions as adequate and unchallenged (2, 10).

While the MLQ does not label the leadership style of Captains, it does infer trends and likelihoods. Within the scores collected, Captain X views themselves as a Transformational leader who directly, and positively, influences their teams’ performances. While Captain Y does not fit directly into Transformational, Transactional, or Avoidant Leadership. Captain Y rated herself as an amalgamation of both transformational and transactional leadership styles, specializing in having a strong moral code who may occasionally act as a parental figure to many of their teammates (IB).

As stated previously, this study had three hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that the Captains would rate themselves as having higher Transformational and Transactional Leadership when compared to the scores of the Coaches and Teammates. This hypothesis was not true with either Captains. The second hypothesis was the Captains would rate themselves as having lower Avoidant Leadership when compared to the scores of the Coaches and Teammates. This hypothesis was true only for Captain Y. The last hypothesis was that Captains will have an inverse relationship between the scores of MBEA and MBEP. This was found to be true in both Captains.

Limitations & Future Directions

While this study had several strengths, the main being the first empirical test of the 360 Feedback method, it of course is not without weakness. The first being a small sample size. While the MLQ does not give a specific sample size to use to make it effective, merely using one team (n=9) is small nonetheless. Future studies of this nature should look to include various teams from different sport types, genders, age and experience levels. To ensure validity, the items of the MLQ were not re-worded for each distinct participant group. All items of the MLQ were phrased “I am…”. While the items were worded correctly for the captains, all coaches and teammates had to reword the items in their heads as they were not responding to these questions about themselves. Furthermore, the MLQ is not a sport specific questionnaire. While it is a statistically valid and reliable questionnaire, it was designed to be used with a general population base. It was not specifically designed for athletes.

Other limitations to consider, are the social pressures of collegiate teammates. Despite the confidential and anonymous nature of the study, teammates may have felt unconscious pressure to identify their captains as having higher levels of positive leadership to avoid drama, feelings of guilt, or confrontations from the team (2).

Outside of adjustments to sample size, and inclusion of a sport specific questionnaire, future research should include a qualitative component to capture nuances of leadership, as well as a debriefing session with both coaches and captains. This level of transparency about how the captain is doing in the coaches and teammates eyes could provide a mechanism for change and promote open dialogue between all parties.

Lastly, the population used in this study were proficient in the English language, it was not their first language. With many international students and coaches used in this study, it is unknown if there were any difficulties understanding, reading, or comprehending the items they were tasked with completing.

CONCLUSION 

This study provides an empirical look at leadership and perceptions of different stakeholders about how team captain’s lead. Ultimately, one of the biggest takeaways is the large variance in opinions about the captains. Not just the difference in perception from the captains themselves to the ratings of the athletes and coaches, but the differences of how each individual teammate viewed the ability of the captain.  While the goal was to analyze the self-awareness of collegiate sport captains, the take home was more centered around the unique perception and individual nature to each athlete of what makes a great leader. This is supported in various studies regarding the notion that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership (9, 12, 13, 17) Simply because an individual is elected, or selected, as a captain, that does not automatically make them an excellent leader and unanimously beloved.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Applied implications of this study are vast within the realms of research and consulting practices. First, it provides a framework for future 360-Degree Feedback Method studies to take place. As previously stated, this method of research is underutilized in the realm of Sport Psychology research. Additionally, the data collected from this study may be used to update leadership education programs, creating importance for Self-Awareness training and identification within students, athletes, and leaders. Use of this data can also be used to stress the importance of team building and team cohesion. This study’s data found that the team’s coaches and teammates had dramatically different opinions on the leadership of their captains. This dramatic difference within the groups can be harmful to a team’s cohesion and performance, stressing the importance of this research study.

REFERENCES 

  1. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden.
  2. Bratton, V. K., Dodd, N. G., & Brown, F. W. (2011). The impact of emotional intelligence on accuracy of self‐awareness and leadership performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731111112971
  3. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
  4. Carlson, M. S. (1998). 360-degree feedback: The power of multiple perspectives. Popular Government, 63(2), 38–49.
  5. Carson, M. (2006). Saying it like it isn’t: The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Business Horizons, 49(5), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.01.004
  6. Drew, G. (2009). A “360” degree view for individual leadership development. Journal of Management Development, 26(7), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910972698
  7. Eurich, T. (2017, September). Increase your self-awareness with one simple fix [Video]. TEDxMileHigh. https://www.ted.com/talks/tasha_eurich_increase_your_self_awareness_with_one_simple_fix
  8. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91)90016-U
  9. George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A. N., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 1–8.
  10. Ghaleb, B. (2024). Social loafing: Understanding, mitigating, and enhancing group performance. International Journal of Scientific Multidisciplinary Research, 2(9), 1321-1328. https://doi.org/10.55927/ijsmr.v2i9.10975
  11. Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research, 4(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.704
  12. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  13. Pienaar, J., & Nel, P. (2017). A conceptual framework for understanding leader self-schemas and the influence of those self-schemas on the integration of feedback. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v15i0.772
  14. Robbins, J. E., & Madrigal, L. (2017). Sport, exercise, and performance psychology: Bridging theory and application. Springer Publishing Company.
  15. Shaffer, J. (2018). 360 review: Self, teammate, and coach evaluation for personal development. Synergy Performance: A Division of Synergy Group.
  16. Wagstaff, C. R. D., Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2012). Positive organizational psychology in sport: An ethnography of organizational functioning in a national sport organization. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24(1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2011.589423
  17. Warrick, D. (2011). The urgent need for skilled transformational leaders: Integrating transformational leadership and organization development. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 8(5), 11–26.
2026-04-15T11:28:29-05:00May 6th, 2026|General, Sport Education, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies|Comments Off on Identifying Self-Awareness of Leadership Abilities Using 360 Degree Feedback Method: A Case Study of Collegiate Rowers
Read More

Over-promised, under-delivered: Does position in the National Football League draft matter?

Authors: Dennis M. Shaffer1 and Ryanne E. Shaffer

1Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University Mansfield, Mansfield, Ohio, USA

 

Corresponding Author:

Dennis M. Shaffer, PhD

1760 University Drive

Mansfield, OH 44906

[email protected]

Dennis M. Shaffer, PhD, is a Full Professor Psychology at The Ohio State University in Mansfield, Ohio. His research interests focus on how athletes use visual information to pursue and induce collisions with targets in the environment in domains such as Frisbee catching, American football, and baseball, and how cognition and systems of perception and action interact.

Ryanne E. Shaffer is currently a senior at Twinsburg High School in Twinsburg, Ohio.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose. We investigated whether players drafted higher in the National Football League (NFL) over a ten-year period performed better in their first four years in the league, consistent with the trade value charts and rookie wage scale the NFL uses to value players. The purpose was to see whether how the NFL intuits draft values is connected to player performance.

Methods. In Study 1, we collected draft position data for each of the seven rounds of the draft over a ten-year period as well as the values for each of two different trade charts and the salaries in the rookie wage scale. We then coded data by round, third of round (top, middle, bottom), years in the league, and Pro Football Focus (PFF) grades.

Results. We found no correlation between performance and the way the NFL values draft positions and no difference in player performance and years in the league between draft positions in rounds 4 and 5. There were also no differences in player performance or years played in the among top, middle, or bottom thirds of rounds. We also found a distinct advantage in player performance for teams trading down for draft picks compared to those trading up for draft picks, contrary to the way the NFL values draft positions.

Conclusions. Our work shows several player performance-based results that contradict well-established beliefs concerning the value of draft picks in the NFL.

Applications in Sport. Trade values and rookie wage salaries are used as baselines by the NFL. The importance of drafting better players higher in the draft order have important implications for greater success for teams, executives, and players. Our work may inform strategies that might be best to use in drafting prospective players in the National Football League.

Key Words: NFL draft, trade value, intuitive beliefs, player performance.

INTRODUCTION 

The work here tested whether draft position predicts player performance once they are drafted into the National Football League (NFL). The NFL draft is set up so the team with the worst regular season record picks first, followed by the team with the second worst regular season record picking second, and so on. Picking first, though it means you finished with the worst record in the league the previous year, is an enviable position to be in at draft time as you have your pick of ~250-~275 players. The NFL draft consists of seven rounds(since 1994) of draft picks where, at least originally, every team has one pick in every round. Prevailing wisdom in this field and even if you are picking teams for any game whether athletic or not is that higher picks should be valued more than lower picks and that over time the data should bear this out.

The intuitive beliefs that the NFL, individual teams, and executives have about draft order or draft pick position can be measured in two ways. First, this may be measured by what are called ‘trade value charts,’ that define values for each one of the draft picks (3). There are a few different types of trade value charts, but most teams follow one of these versions if they want to trade draft picks with any other team. The classic version of a trade value chart is the Jimmy Johnson (JJ) chart. A more recent chart is the Rich Hill (RH) trade value chart. These charts basically provide teams with a framework or baseline from which to trade draft picks (14). The trade value charts are similar in several ways—(1) values increase exponentially in the first round from about pick 4 to pick 1 and (2) values for picks decrease for each subsequent pick. For instance, Pick #10 in the JJ chart this year was given a value that was 46.3% of Pick#1 (RH chart = 36.9%); Pick #20 was given a value that was 28.33% of Pick #1 (RH chart = 26.9%), and Pick #30 was given a value that was 20.67% of Pick #1 (RH chart = 19.6%). Consistent with this, the ratio of values in the top third : middle third of the first round is 1.824 in the JJ chart, (RH chart = 2); middle third : bottom third is ~1.49 (RH = 1.55); top third : bottom third is ~2.71 (RH = 3.13), and bottom third of 1st : top third of 2nd is 1.3 (RH = 1.5).

The second way the NFL’s intuitive beliefs about draft order may be measured is by the ‘rookie wage scale’ put forth by the player’s labor union and the NFL in 2011, which defines the parameters for what every drafted player will earn in his first four years in the league (3). For instance, this year, the number one overall draft pick will earn $48,757,500 in total value over his first 4 years; the number 10 pick will earn a little less than 55% of that (a difference of over $22M over the first four years); the number 20 pick will earn about 37% of that (a difference of almost $30M), while the number 30 pick will earn about 31.25% of that (a difference of ~$33.5M). While the percentage and salary difference is less in subsequent rounds among those picks (picks 1, 10, 20, and 30 in rounds 2-7), the importance of drafting better players higher in the draft order have important implications for building the best team, paying players the proper amount for their performance, the amount of money that is charged to a team’s salary cap, and the livelihood of the NFL executives who have a hand in drafting these players.

Previous work has investigated several avenues regarding characteristics that affect draft value, that are related to performance once in the NFL (5, 9, 15, 17, 20). The results of some of this work show how draft value does very little to affect probabilities of teams making the playoffs (9, 15), Other work has shown that college performance is a better predictor of performance once in the NFL than tests measuring physical ability (11, 20-21). While other work has shown that total yards gained by running backs in college and overall speed has been shown to be a primary predictor of both draft status and higher salaries once in the NFL over tests of physical ability and combine tests (6, 11, 16-17, 20). Additionally, predicting success based on results of athletic testing including the NFL Combine can yield complicated and somewhat mixed results (16).

The primary focus of this paper was to investigate whether what teams intuit of draft value based on grades in these trade value charts and rookie wage scales matches actual performance data for the players chosen in those spots. More specifically, our primary investigative foci in Study 1 were to: (1) analyze whether differences in player value (as given by trade value charts and the rookie wage scale) from pick-to-subsequent-pick were correlated with differences in player performance from pick-to-subsequent-pick, (2) analyze whether player performance, as measured by Pro Football Focus (PFF) grades and years spent in the league, was different among and within rounds (14), (3) analyze whether PFF grades and years in the league were different among thirds of rounds across and within rounds, (4) and analyze how the NFL valuation and PFF grades for last twelve picks of the first round compared to the first twelve picks of the second round.

STUDY 1

METHODS

Data Sets

We first used the Pro Football Reference site (20) to gather and download data for every player drafted from 2011-2020. We then used the Pro Football Focus (14) site to gather the overall season grades for each player across their first four years in the NFL. This resulted in 2,544 drafted players across 10 years. This study was approved by The Ohio State University Behavioral and Social Sciences Institutional Review Board (Study Number: 2023B0282).

Procedure

Evaluating a Player’s First Four Years in the NFL

Since we were interested in evaluating the success of teams in drafting, we evaluated player performance over the player’s first four years. This is because four years is the length of all rookie (1st year player) contracts. Additionally, the first four years provides a very good indicator of what the teams think the player can do for their team in terms of performance.

Understanding the Pro Football Focus Grading System

PFF analyzes every player on every snap, with each play receiving a grade on a scale from -2 to +2. A score of 0 represents an average or the expected execution of the player’s responsibilities, while a +2 denotes an outstanding play and a -2 indicates a critical error. These assessments are adjusted for factors such as difficulty of assignment and game context. PFF’s system includes tracking over 200 data points per play using the All-22 coaches’ film, including such aspects as player alignment, assignment, and outcome of the play from every aspect of the field (1, 14). PFF then converts these evaluations into a normalized score on a 0–100 scale.

Calculation and Coding of PFF Grades and Years in the League

While PFF normalizes plays to values ranging from 0-100, the overall grades across an entire season of plays are far more restricted, ranging from ~high 40’s-low 90’s (for the requirement of at least 10 games played per season as described below). For every player, we calculated a mean for their overall PFF grade across their first four years after being drafted. For players with a missing grade, we found which of the four years there was a missing grade for and why. If the player was injured and missed the entire year (for any year), we did not count that year for their average and averaged across their other years. For players at most positions, we used the offense or defense overall grade for the given year. Only for punters and kickers did we use the special team grade. Our threshold for counting a PFF grade for the year, was at least ten games played. Additionally, if the drafting team waived the player they drafted, we assigned that player a value of 35, as that is below the lowest grade anyone on a team who played earned across an entire year of play (with a minimum of 10 games played). If they played on a team after they were waived, we filled in the four years with the grade(s) they earned in the remaining year(s) on the subsequent team. We wanted to penalize the drafting team, but we also did not want to assign a 0 as waiving the player was an act but does not represent their PFF grade over an entire year. Additionally, this happened far less often in earlier rounds and since we were calculating means, we did not want these outliers to dramatically influence the results. We assigned a value of 45 for a player who was on an NFL roster, but not active for the minimum number of games (or did not have enough snaps to be graded by PFF). This is a lower grade than any player we graded who played during the season for at least ten games and gave us a baseline for someone who is good enough to be on the team but may not be good enough/needed to dress on game day(s). We did not gather PFF data for rounds 6 and 7 as fewer players in these rounds were active for enough games (i.e., played enough snaps) for which PFF could assign grades.

Finally, we also analyzed the number of years players were in the league. Again, in the interests of evaluating how well teams draft, we were really focused on years in the league of these players over their first four to five years. Therefore, we coded years played in the league in categories of less than two years, two to three years, four years, five years, and more than five years, and then analyzed this coded data.

Availability of Data and Material

Data may be accessed at: https://osf.io/pf5hq/?view_only=28f7350c720f430b92270c76e5b48080

RESULTS

We performed Bayesian analyses throughout the Results sections for all experiments to properly identify and balance the same evidence in favor of as we did evidence opposed to differences, in line with the recommendations of both Dienes (4) and Kruschke (7). The primary independent variables were draft round and position within the round (top, middle, or bottom third), while the primary dependent variables were years in the league and PFF mean overall grade for players’ first four years in the league. We outline each set of analyses below.

Testing for Correlations Between Differences in PFF Grades and Differences in Jimmy Johnson and Rich Hill Trade Chart Values and Rookie Salaries for Each Subsequent Pick

 If players drafted with picks 1-10 are better than players drafted with picks 10-20, and so on, then both the difference in trade chart values and rookie wage scale salaries from pick #1 to pick #2 and pick #2 to #3 and so on through the first five rounds of the draft should be highly correlated with PFF grades. Bayesian correlational analyses showed substantial to strong evidence that there was close to zero correlation between PFF grades and trade chart values, RH trade value chart: Bayes Factor in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01)= 5.594, r = .086, JJ trade value chart: BF01= 10.485, r = .014, and PFF grades and rookie wage scale salaries: BF01= 9.047, r = .043. The Bayes factors may be interpreted that it is 5.594, 10.485, and 9.047 times as likely that there is no correlation between PFF grades and RH trade chart values, JJ trade chart values, and rookie wage scale salaries, respectively, than there is a correlation (12, 24). Values of BF01 or BF10 of 0-1 = no evidence, 1-3 = anecdotal evidence, 3-10 = substantial evidence, 10-30 = strong evidence, 30-100 = very strong evidence, and >100 = decisive evidence in favor of whatever hypothesis is being tested (null (BF01) or alternative (BF10) (12, 24).

Analyzing How the NFL Values Draft Positions Based on the Rookie Wage Scale

We first established how the NFL values draft position across rounds and thirds of rounds. We used the rookie wage scale salaries for the first five rounds of the draft (the same rounds for which we calculated PFF grades for players—picks 1-165). Bayesian analyses showed decisive evidence of differences in salaries across rounds, BF10= 2.806 x 10+37, F(4, 150) = 448.83, p < .001, h2 = 0.71, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests also indicated decisive evidence for differences among all rounds. Bayesian analysis showed substantial evidence of differences in salaries across thirds of rounds, BF10= 4.99, F(2, 150) = 88.19, p < .001, h2 = 0.07, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests confirmed between anecdotal to substantial evidence for differences among all thirds of rounds (top, middle, and bottom). Virtually identical results were found when performing these same analyses using each trade value chart in lieu of the rookie wage scale.

Analyzing Differences in Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade

 Coded Years in League

 A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in years played in the league showed that there were: BF10= 2.806 x 10+111 (decisive evidence), > Test value F(6, 2536) = 101.93, p < .001, h2 = 0.19, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Post hoc tests indicated that there was moderate to strong evidence that players drafted in round 1 remained in the league somewhat longer than players drafted in round 2, BF10= 4.312 (moderate to substantial). Players in almost all subsequent rounds remained in the league for less time than the previous round. One exception was that there was no difference in years played in the league between rounds 4 and 5, BF01 = 3.83 in favor of no difference, indicating moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference in years played in the league for 4th and 5th round draft picks.

 PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in PFF overall mean grade showed that there were: BF10= 2.673 x 10+59 (decisive evidence), > Test value F(6, 2536) = 80.95, p < .001, h2 = 0.16, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. Additionally, again almost all post hoc test BF10 evidence showed decisive evidence for differences among all five rounds with values ranging from BF10 = 188.192 to 2.724 x 10+38. The one exception was that there was no difference in PFF overall mean grade between rounds 4 and 5, BF01 = 4.51 in favor of no difference, indicating moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference. Figure 1 shows a graph of pick position (x-axis) by PFF grade (y-axis) for picks across all ten years.

Figure 1.

Shown is a plot of the pick number by overall mean PFF grade for the first 4 years. Each symbol represents the average PFF grade across 10 years for a particular position in the draft (picks1-179).

Differences in Thirds of Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in years played in the league in terms of whether a player was chosen at the top, in the middle, or at the bottom third of the round showed decisive evidence that there is no difference: BF01= 20.998, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707.

PFF Overall Mean Grade

A Bayesian one-way ANOVA analyzing whether there were differences in PFF overall mean grade showed decisive evidence that there also is no difference: BF01= 30.292, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707.

Differences Among Top, Middle, and Bottom of Rounds for Coded Years in League and PFF Overall Mean Grade Round-by-Round

While our previous analyses show no differences among player longevity and PFF overall mean grade across the top, middle, and bottom of rounds, it could be that any potential differences were washed out by combining rounds for the analysis. For instance, later rounds that have lesser talented players overall may see no differences, or have more talented players at the middle and bottom of rounds than the tops of rounds, whereas earlier rounds may have more talented players at the tops of rounds than at the middle and bottom of rounds. These effects or patterns may cancel each other out by combining all rounds. Therefore, we again tested for differences among the top, middle, and bottom third of rounds, but this time did so within each round. Table 1 shows the results of these analyses.

Table 1.

Shown are Bayes factor in favor of the null hypothesis (BF01) for one-way ANOVAs testing for differences in coded years in the league and PFF overall mean grades for draft picks in rounds 1-7 (for years) and round 1-5 (for PFF grades) from 2011-2020. Values of BF01 of 1-3 = anecdotal evidence, 3-10 = substantial evidence, 10-30 = strong evidence, 30-100 = very strong evidence, and >100 = decisive evidence in favor of the null hypothesis) (12, 23).

Round 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
Years in League2.2373.2847.1034.856.1791.28510.313
PFF Grades8.54318.6256.6032.5219.475  

Predicting PFF Grades from Trade Value Charts and Evaluating Whether Trading Up into the First Round from the Second Round Warranted

Many times, draft experts will argue that some teams may “trade up” into the bottom third of the first round—that is, the last ~twelve to fifteen (~picks 18-32 or so)–from the top of the second round in order to draft a second player for whom they will have the 5th year option (1st round pick). Many teams have done this in the past. In fact, according to the values themselves, the NFL views the bottom 10-15 picks in round 1 as over 7008 times greater in value than the top 10-15 picks in round 2 , BF10= 7008.114, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707). When we analyzed PFF grades across ten years for the “bottom third” of the first round (12 picks—21-32) and compared them to PFF grades across ten years for the “top third” of the second round (12 picks—33-44), a Bayesian one-way ANOVA showed substantial evidence that there is no difference: BF01= 6.854, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707 (MBottom10of1st = 63.835; SDBottom10of1st = 10.642, MTop10of2nd= 64.387, SDTop10of2nd = 9.975).

STUDY 2

In Study 1 we found that the NFL values draft positions in the top of a round far more than those in the middle or bottom of a round and those in the middle of the round far more than those in the bottom of a round. However, there was substantial to decisive evidence of no differences in PFF grades across and within rounds, respectively, for top, middle, and bottom thirds of draft positions in rounds. We also found that there was no difference in PFF grades for draft positions in the top third of the 2nd round compared to the bottom third of the 1st round. This predicts that teams should not move up in a draft for players as the player performance will not be better for players drafted even 20-30 picks higher. When teams move up in the draft, they give up more draft capital for at least two reasons. First, while the values in the trade value chart might be even, typically the team moving back must give up more than one pick to do that in order to even out the trade value. Second, the team trading down must be incentivized in some ways to trade down. Sometimes, that team simply needs more players for the values to be even. Other times, the team trading down will ask for more as they are giving up an attractive draft pick. In Study 2, we sought to investigate whether the findings from the ten year period we investigated in Study 1 would predict the outcome of pick-for-pick trades in the 2021 NFL draft.

METHODS

We identified each of the draft pick-for-draft pick trades in the draft immediately after the last season for which we analyzed draft picks (the 2021 NFL draft). We evaluated each of the twenty-nine trades that are listed by the NFL that occurred during the 2021 draft (15). We did this because the 2021 draft was the first draft after the last year for which player performance data was collected so it allowed us to test whether our findings predicted future patterns and because it was the last year that would still allow us to analyze player performance in the first four years of the player’s career. We only looked at trades involving draft picks for draft picks.

Raters

We had two high school football players (MAge = 18 years, MExperiencePlayingCompetitiveFootball = 6 years) who have a strong knowledge of not only the workings of football but also a strong knowledge of the NFL, the NFL draft, and grading players.

Procedure     

We gave raters the series of trades with round(s), pick number(s), and PFF grades across years played listed for each pick. We removed the draft year and team and player names from the list. Raters were also blind to which part of the trade was the “trade up” and which part was the “trade down.” Our list consisted of Team A on one side and Team B on the other. We randomly assigned which team (“trade up” or “trade down”) was Team A and which team was Team B. We instructed raters on how PFF grades are set up and general cutoffs for what PFF grades are generally considered elite, good, above average, average, and poor. We also instructed them to decide which team “won” each trade. While they were instructed that they should use all the information available in making their decisions, they were told that the performance of the players (i.e. PFF grades) should be paramount in making their decisions.

Raters made their judgments independently from one another. They were initially seated in two different areas at the same time while they made their judgments. They then came together, compared their judgments, and went over the judgments that were different to see whether they could come to a consensus on the judgments that were different.

RESULTS

The raters initially agreed on 20/29 trades. After discussing the trades they had originally disagreed on, they came to a consensus on all 29. Of the 9 on which they initially had different answers, neither rater favored the “trade up” team; each of the 9 consisted of one rater deciding on the “trade down” team and the other deciding on “neither.” For 6/9 of the trades they eventually decided on “neither,” and in the other 3 trades they decided on “trade down.” Finally agreed-upon frequencies for each group were: Trade Up: 4, Trade Down: 19, and Neither: 6.

Since we were only interested in testing whether trading up resulted in better player performance, we were most interested in a comparison where we split the categories into the following two groups: Group 1: Trade Up and Group 2: Trade Down and Neither. We performed a Bayesian binomial test on frequencies of what the raters judged as “wins” in each category. Raters judged that there were significantly more wins in terms of better performing players for teams who traded down than for teams who traded up, BF10  = 753.471, Proportion = .832, Prior Distribution with α and β = 1. This is decisive evidence that trading down led to better performing players than trading up and may be interpreted that it is more than 753 times more likely that trading down led to better performing players than trading up. In a second analysis, we compared only trade downs versus trade ups and removed any trade that resulted in a judgement of “neither.” Raters again judged that there were significantly more wins in terms of better performing players for teams who traded down than for teams who traded up, BF10  = 39.472 , Proportion = .826, Prior Distribution with α and β = 1. This indicates very strong evidence that trading down led to better performing players than trading up. Therefore, even when solely comparing trade ups versus trade downs, it is still over thirty nine more times likely that trading down led to better performing players than trading up.

DISCUSSION 

The way the NFL values draft positions in terms of trade values and rookie salaries is not correlated at all with player performance consistent with previous work (14). While time spent in the league and overall PFF grade during their rookie contracts did, for the most part, gradually decline in subsequent rounds as trade value charts, fans, and NFL executives would all predict, this pattern was not straightforward. One large deviation from this gradual decline between rounds was between the  4th and 5th rounds, where there was moderate to substantial evidence in favor of no difference in both years played and overall PFF grades between those rounds, contradicting how the NFL values draft position. In fact, if we use trade values as a representation of people’s intuitions then we should expect far greater value out of 4th round picks than we do from 5th round picks, as a Bayesian independent-samples t-test analyzing trade values in round 4 versus round 5 found decisive evidence that round 4 values are significantly greater than round 5 values, BF10= 7.294 x 10+11, Cauchy Prior with a scale of .707. According to the values themselves, the NFL views round 4 picks as 7.294 x 10+11 greater in value than 5th round picks.

There were several other counterintuitive findings. First, there was decisive evidence of no difference among the top, middle, and bottom thirds of rounds across all rounds for both years in the league and PFF grades. Second, this evidence of no difference for both years in the league and PFF grades among the top, middle, and bottom thirds of rounds was a regularity for every round when evaluating each round individually. Third, we found that the performance of players taken in the top third of the second round was no different from the performance of players taken in the bottom third of the first round across all ten years, contradicting what the trade values tell us—that there is decisive evidence in favor of differences in those respective trade values.

When we looked at trades that occurred in 2021, we found that, in terms of quality of player(s), the large majority—over 82%–and significant number of trades did not favor the team who traded higher up in the draft where that pick had greater value. This result is consistent with what was found with the analyses finding no differences across thirds of rounds across and within rounds across our data. This has important implications for not only player performance, but also because it has been recently shown that teams getting the better end of trades increase their probability of making the playoffs (9).

There were limitations to this study. First, while PFF grades are used by NFL teams, NFL analytics sites, and content creators to assess player performance and are seen as the best tool for doing this, they are not perfect. However, while there may be an argument as to what goes into creating the absolute grades, we analyzed the grades relatively for players so the shortcomings of the grades themselves would apply to all players. A second limitation is that we used trade values and rookie wage salaries to as a measure of how general managers (GMs) of teams and the NFL as a whole assess player quality without directly asking them about how they value draft positions. However, there was a collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and player’s union that put in place the rookie wage scale in 2011 (3), and owners, GMs, and players all had their input into how this would be created. Additionally, every team in the NFL uses these trade values as the standard way to barter before, during, and after the draft. Thus, we feel this was a fair way to assess the way the NFL values draft positions.

Further research should be conducted to see how the player performance grades in the first four years connect with second contracts of players in their next 2-5 years. It may be that it takes certain players four years to blossom in the league. However, the average tenure of a player who makes the opening-day roster is ~6 years (about half of that if you include drafted players who do not make the opening day roster). Other work should focus on directly assessing the executives in charge of the teams who draft players and the intuitions they have regarding trading up or down in the draft and what goes into these decisions. It may be that player performance is not the only factor that drives this decision making.

CONCLUSION 

Differences in the way the NFL values draft positions are not associated with player performance in those respective draft positions. This occurs whether you analyze differences in values assigned to draft positions, different positions within a round, or adjacent positions across rounds. These patterns from our findings also predict the outcomes of future drafts in terms of the assets a team trading up gets compared to a team trading down.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT

Trade values and trade value charts in the NFL are used as the baselines by which to trade draft picks. These charts serve at least two purposes. First, they give general managers a common mechanism that they generally agree on to trade draft picks. Second, it prevents desperate teams from trading away too much and prevents overly greedy teams from demanding too much. These values assign an assumed or perceived worth of the player picked in that position. The idea is that, while picks that are very close together may result in players that are of equal talent, picks that are several positions away from one another should result in better players for those picks that are higher in the draft order. This is reflected in the draft assets that teams are willing to give up to move up in the draft order. Our work shows that there are several performance-based patterns that contradict these naïve beliefs stemming from values given to players. While some teams might argue that they needed a player at a specific position over the best available player, one would expect that if teams stayed with their original pick, that across a general manager’s tenure they would be better off picking someone who provides better performance and not positional need. One should also expect that over one’s tenure the player performance is more valuable as a better player is more valuable as a trade asset. Our work may inform strategies that might be best to use in drafting prospective players in the National Football League.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dennis M. Shaffer conceptualized the studies. For Study 1, the author oversaw investigation, methodology, and data curation. Formal analysis in the paper was conducted by this author. 

Ryanne E. Shaffer contributed to both studies, assisting with data curation for Study 1, and conducting Study 2. Dennis M. Shaffer supervised Study 2. 

The paper was drafted by Dennis M. Shaffer; the paper was reviewed and edited by Ryanne E. Shaffer. 

The authors would like to thank JD Okuma and Gavin Davis for their work as raters.

REFERENCES 

1. ALL-22 (2025). https://www.all-22.com/#/

2. All Access Football (2025). https://www.allaccessfootball.com/p/nfl-draft-pick-trade-value-chart

3. Deubert, C., Wong, G. M., & Howe, J. (2012). All four quarters: A retrospective and analysis of the 2011 collective bargaining process and agreement in the National

Football League. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 19, 1-78. https://doi.org/10.5070/LR8191027149

4. Dienes, Z. (2024). Use one system for all results to avoid contradiction: Advice for using significance tests, equivalence tests, and Bayes factors. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 50, 531-534. doi: 1        0.1037/xhp0001202.

5. Hadley, L., Poitras, M., Ruggiero, J., & Knowles, S. (2000). Performance evaluation of National Football League teams. Managerial And Decision Economics, 2, 63-70.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108334

6. Hartman, M. (2011). Competitive performance compared to combine performance as a valid predictor of NFL draft status. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25, S105-S106. DOI:10.1097/01.JSC.0000395746.03546.e8

7. Kruschke, J. K. (2021). Bayesian analysis reporting guidelines. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1282-1291. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01177-7

8. Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification. Collabra: Psychology, 8, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267

9. Lapre, M., A., & Palazzolo, E. M. (2024). Does draft currency promote competitive balance? An empirical investigation of the National Football League 2002–2021

Journal of Sports Economics, 25, 779-801. https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025241264238

10. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2013). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press.

11. Lyons, B. D., Hoffman, B. J., Michel, J. W., & Williams, K. J. (2011). On the predictive efficiency of past performance and physical ability: The case of the National Football League. Human Performance, 24, 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.555218

12. Massey, C., and Thaler, R. (2013). The loser’s curse: Decision making and market efficiency in the National Football League draft. Management Science, 59, 1479-1495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1657

13. NFL (2025). https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-draft-trade-tracker-full-details-of-every-move

14. PFF football news and analysis (June, 2025). https://www.pff.com/.

15. Reynolds, Z., Bonds, T., Thompson, S., LeCrom, C. (2015). Deconstructing the draft: An evaluation of the NFL draft as a predictor of team success. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 7, https://doi.org/10.7290/jasm07bj7q.

16. Rishis, E., Johnston, K., & Baker, J. (2023). On the predictive validity of the National Football League combine: Does it forecast future success? Journal of Sports Sciences, 41,

217-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2207853

17. Simmons, R., & Berri, D. (2009). Gains from specialization and free Agency: The story from the gridiron. Review Of Industrial Organization, 34, 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-009-9200-9

18. Sports Reference © (June, 2025). Pro Football Reference. https://www.pro-football-reference.com

19. Spotrac © (September, 2025). https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/rookie-scale.

20. Terry, N. (2007). Investing in NFL prospects: Factors influencing team winning percentage. International Advances In Economic Research, 13, 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-006-9071-x

21. Tucker, R., Lee, C., & Black, W. J. (2024). The predictive ability of the physical skills used at the NFL combine to predict draft status. The Sport Journal. https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-predictive-ability-of-the-physical-skills-used-at-the-nfl-combine-to-predict-draft-status/

22. Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406923

.

2025-10-13T10:22:32-05:00April 29th, 2026|Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Management|Comments Off on Over-promised, under-delivered: Does position in the National Football League draft matter?
Read More

Accreditation, Curriculum, and Competition: An Explanatory Case Study of Sport Sales Education in Undergraduate Sport Management Programs

Authors: Joshua S. Greer1, Nicholas Zoroya2, and Tim Wilson3

1Cumberland University

2Wayne State University

3Middle Tennessee State University

 

Corresponding Author:

Joshua S. Greer

[email protected]

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-QYSEQPISQYES-S Social SkillsYES-S Cog. SkillsYES-S Goal SettingYES-S Initiative
Variablen%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            
1037.35.61(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)
11922.05.46(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)
122048.86.10(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)
13922.05.71(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            
Boy2561.06.03(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)
Girl1639.05.56(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            
White2765.95.77(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)
Black12.4          
Asian49.85.50(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)
Hispanic49.86.27(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)
Other512.26.13(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)
Total41100.05.84(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 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 0.7741.268-1.8023.3500.546
Gender-0.129-0.1750.184-0.5500.1990.348
Age0.3690.2910.1100.0670.5150.012
Race-0.024-0.0080.042-0.0940.0780.858
DCART-Q0.4820.2500.0740.0990.4000.002
DPISQ0.3260.3820.1600.5800.7070.022

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 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 2.0482.221-2.4656.5610.363
Gender-0.155-0.3150.323-0.9720.3420.337
Age0.1430.1690.193-0.2240.5610.389
Race-0.066-0.0320.074-0.1820.1190.670
DCART-Q0.4030.3120.1300.0480.5760.022
DPISQ0.1580.2770.280-0.2920.8450.330

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

Variables1234567
1. Age       
2. CART-Q-0.34*      
3. PISQ0.150.23     
4. YSEQ-0.140.66**0.31*    
5. Social Skills0.140.62**0.35*0.47**   
6. Cognitive Skills-0.050.40*0.160.160.66**  
7. Goal Setting0.030.43**0.130.42**0.57**0.70** 
8. Initiative-0.100.53**0.180.47**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  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept2.0531.862-1.7315.836 0.278
Gender-0.2280.271-0.7790.322-0.1400.405
Age0.1860.162-0.1430.5150.1960.259
Race0.0110.062-0.1150.1370.0280.863
DCART-Q0.2300.1090.0080.4510.3690.042
DPISQ0.1750.235-0.3020.6510.1240.462

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  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept4.0001.3151.3286.671-0.1203.043
Gender-0.1380.191-0.5270.2500.062-0.723
Age0.0420.114-0.1910.2740.0350.365
Race0.0100.044-0.0790.0990.3890.221
DCART-Q0.1710.0770.0150.3270.0872.224
DPISQ0.0860.166-0.2510.423-0.1200.520

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.

2026-04-09T15:25:29-05:00April 9th, 2026|Contemporary Sports Issues, Leadership, Research, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Accreditation, Curriculum, and Competition: An Explanatory Case Study of Sport Sales Education in Undergraduate Sport Management Programs
Read More

The Role of Sport Relationships in Positive Youth Development

Authors: Jim P. Arnold1 and William V. Massey1

1Department of Kinesiology, College of Health, Oregon State University

 

Corresponding Author:

Jim P. Arnold

[email protected]

Jim P. Arnold https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2282-1915
William V. Massey, Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4002-3720
We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

ABSTRACT 

Purpose. Research on positive youth development (PYD) through sport remains unclear and speculative (Whitley et al., 2019). It has been suggested that sport-based PYD can occur implicitly through positive relationships (Holt et al., 2017). The present pilot study examined the impact of changes in the coach-athlete relationship, peer cohesion, and parental involvement on PYD outcomes across a sport season in a sample of youth soccer participants (N = 41, Mage = 11.85, 61% boys).

Methods. Athletes responded to surveys rating their relationships with coaches, parents, and peers at two time points, and additionally reported their perceptions of developmental skills gained across the sport season. A difference score was calculated for each relationship variable to measure change across the season. Four developmental outcomes (i.e., personal and social skills, cognitive skills, goal setting skills, initiative) were regressed on changes in relationship quality across the season, while controlling for age, race, and gender.

Results. Changes to the coach-athlete relationship (b= 0.482, p = 0.002) and parental involvement (b= 0.326, p = 0.022) were significant predictors of perceptions of social skill development (R2 = 0.454, F(5,34) = 5.664, p < 0.001), supporting a relationship-based model of PYD in sport. Significant age and gender differences in ratings of the coach-athlete relationship were also discovered.

Conclusions. The present study not only offers partial support to a Holt and colleagues’ (2017) theory of implicit PYD through sport but also highlights the need important developmental role of relationship building in in the sport context.

Applications in Sport. Organizations should prioritize positive sport relationships through education, training, and programming, as poor or absent relationships may undermine the envisioned benefits of sport. In particular, the present study highlights the need for positive parental involvement, which may require stakeholders to work with parents to define their role expectations.

KEYWORDS: youth sport, positive youth development, sport relationships, coaching, parental involvement

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-QYSEQPISQYES-S Social SkillsYES-S Cog. SkillsYES-S Goal SettingYES-S Initiative
Variablen%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            
1037.35.61(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)
11922.05.46(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)
122048.86.10(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)
13922.05.71(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            
Boy2561.06.03(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)
Girl1639.05.56(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            
White2765.95.77(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)
Black12.4          
Asian49.85.50(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)
Hispanic49.86.27(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)
Other512.26.13(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)
Total41100.05.84(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 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 0.7741.268-1.8023.3500.546
Gender-0.129-0.1750.184-0.5500.1990.348
Age0.3690.2910.1100.0670.5150.012
Race-0.024-0.0080.042-0.0940.0780.858
DCART-Q0.4820.2500.0740.0990.4000.002
DPISQ0.3260.3820.1600.5800.7070.022

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 
VariablebbSELLULp
Intercept 2.0482.221-2.4656.5610.363
Gender-0.155-0.3150.323-0.9720.3420.337
Age0.1430.1690.193-0.2240.5610.389
Race-0.066-0.0320.074-0.1820.1190.670
DCART-Q0.4030.3120.1300.0480.5760.022
DPISQ0.1580.2770.280-0.2920.8450.330

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

Variables1234567
1. Age       
2. CART-Q-0.34*      
3. PISQ0.150.23     
4. YSEQ-0.140.66**0.31*    
5. Social Skills0.140.62**0.35*0.47**   
6. Cognitive Skills-0.050.40*0.160.160.66**  
7. Goal Setting0.030.43**0.130.42**0.57**0.70** 
8. Initiative-0.100.53**0.180.47**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  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept2.0531.862-1.7315.836 0.278
Gender-0.2280.271-0.7790.322-0.1400.405
Age0.1860.162-0.1430.5150.1960.259
Race0.0110.062-0.1150.1370.0280.863
DCART-Q0.2300.1090.0080.4510.3690.042
DPISQ0.1750.235-0.3020.6510.1240.462

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  
VariablebSELLULbp
Intercept4.0001.3151.3286.671-0.1203.043
Gender-0.1380.191-0.5270.2500.062-0.723
Age0.0420.114-0.1910.2740.0350.365
Race0.0100.044-0.0790.0990.3890.221
DCART-Q0.1710.0770.0150.3270.0872.224
DPISQ0.0860.166-0.2510.423-0.1200.520

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.

2025-10-01T13:40:31-05:00March 18th, 2026|Leadership, Research, Sport Education, Sport Training, Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on The Role of Sport Relationships in Positive Youth Development
Read More

The Sport Journal uses Accessibility Checker to monitor our website's accessibility.

Go to Top