Personal and Social Responsibility Development in a Volleyball Hybrid Positive Youth Development Program: A Mixed Methods Approach

ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 11 August 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675532 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Edited by: Eva M. Romera, University of Cordoba, Spain Reviewed by: Fernando Ferreira Santos, Escola Superior de Educação, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal Manuel Gómez-López, University of Murcia, Spain *Correspondence: Elena Hernández-Hernández [email protected] Specialty section: This article was submitted to Movement Science and Sport Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology Received: 03 March 2021 Accepted: 12 July 2021 Published: 11 August 2021 Citation: Muñoz-Llerena A, Hernández-Hernández E, García-de-Alcaraz A and Caballero-Blanco P (2021) Personal and Social Responsibility Development in a Volleyball Hybrid Positive Youth Development Program: A Mixed Methods Approach. Front. Psychol. 12:675532. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675532 Personal and Social Responsibility Development in a Volleyball Hybrid Positive Youth Development Program: A Mixed Methods Approach Antonio Muñoz-Llerena 1,2,3, Elena Hernández-Hernández 2,3 *, Antonio García-de-Alcaraz4,5 and Pablo Caballero-Blanco 1,3 1Physical Education and Sport Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain, 2Sport and Computer Science Department, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 3SEJ-570 MOTIVA2 Research Group, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain, 4Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universidad de Almería, Almería, Spain, 5LFE Research Group, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Positive Youth Development (PYD) programs are being used to foster holistic growth in children and adolescents. The hybridized application of two or more programs of this type has acquired special relevance in recent years. Although their application is common in the school context, there are few research studies that attempt their implementation in an extracurricular context. This study analyzed the effects of an intervention based on a hybrid PYD program on personal responsibility (PR) and social responsibility (SR) in youth volleyball players in an extracurricular context. A hybrid program was applied during the competitive season, with a total of 37 sessions with 30 girl students (15 experimental and 15 control) aged between 8 and 10 years (M=8.87, SD =0.82). A convergent mixed methods design was applied to integrate the following: (a) semi-structured interviews and field notes and (b) personal and social responsibility questionnaires. The results indicated that the implementation of the hybrid program appeared to yield a positive perception of learning in both the participants and the coach. Although there were no statistically significant intergroup or intragroup differences, the findings suggest that the hybrid program seems to be effective in fostering PR and SR in youth girl volleyball players. Keywords: pedagogical model, teaching personal and social responsibility model, sport education model, minivolleyball, competitive sport INTRODUCTION The use of Positive Youth Development (PYD) programs is currently on the rise. PYD, which has its origins in positive psychology (Caballero, 2015), is a way of understanding development rather than a specific construct and is used as an umbrella term to refer to the ways in which youth accumulate optimal developmental experiences in organized activities (Holt and Neely, 2011). Among these organized activities, sports are the most widespread among young people (Larson and Verma, 1999) and are a privileged context for promoting PYD (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Petitpas et al., 2005; Escartí et al., 2009). There are many potential benefits of sport-based PYD (SBPYD) programs. On a physical level, there may be improvements in the cardiovascular system, muscular strength and resistance, flexibility, bone structure and weight control, and a lower risk of suffering from Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, stroke, depression, or cancer. On a psychological/emotional level, opportunities are offered to experience challenge, fun, and enjoyment. SBPYD programs can also increase self-esteem, satisfaction, and happiness and can also decrease stress. On a social level, such programs promote citizenship, social success, positive interrelationships, and the development of skills such as leadership, cooperation, responsibility, empathy, or self-control. On an intellectual level, there is a positive relationship between these programs and academic performance, class attendance, study time, and university attendance (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Petitpas et al., 2005; Theokas et al., 2008; Weiss et al., 2013, 2020; Ivy et al., 2018). However, SBPYD programs may not always foster all of these benefits. There are different factors that must be taken into account for the successful implementation of SBPYD programs. PYD study states that the elements needed to be present in a sports program to achieve PYD are as follows: the climate of the program and the contents to be taught (Escartí et al., 2009); a mastery-oriented and caring climate, peer/adult supportive relationships, and opportunities to learn life skills (Weiss and Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009); or the individual learner (internal and external assets and autobiographical experiences), the learning contexts (school, sport, family, vocational, and extracurricular), and the transfer contexts (factors, e.g., similarity of context, opportunities to use skills, support and rewards for transfer, and psychological processes influencing transfer, e.g., unconscious personal reconstructions, confidence, or level of engagement) (Pierce et al., 2017). Indeed, Petitpas et al. (2008) state that, to develop PYD, sports programs must present voluntary and motivating activities that require effort and commitment and have clear rules, which are used as a metaphor to teach life skills and their application in the lives of youths, all of which should occur within a caring and safe environment led by a respectful adult. On this matter, Holt et al. (2017) established a model of PYD through sport, stating that a program should include a PYD climate (based on relationships between athletes and peers, parents, and other adults) and a focus on life skills program (employing life skill-building and transfer activities) in order to achieve personal, social, and physical PYD outcomes. According to their model, enhancing these outcomes “will facilitate transfer and enable youth to thrive and contribute to their communities” (Holt et al., 2017, p. 38). Within competitive youth sport, Santos and Martinek (2018) established four strategies for coaches to promote its educational potential: to assume the double objective of improving sports skills while learning life lessons and building a positive character, to convert PYD into specific, adapted behaviors, to integrate a PYD-based approach into training sessions, and to maintain a balance between winning expectations and the PYD intervention regardless of the seasonal demands. At present, there are different intellectual currents derived from the PYD theoretical frameworks, related to how PYD can contribute to better sports experiences for youth that connect to their daily lives in current society. Some, like critical PYD (Gonzalez et al., 2020), are focused on adopting a critical perspective on PYD, recognizing the values of youth and their capacity to challenge inequities, and transforming society and its structures to erase oppression. Others reflect on the longterm implications of SBPYD programs and present solutions to support and promote positive individual behavioral changes in the long term, such as the MINDSPACE (Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect, Commitment, and Ego) model (Whitley, 2021). One way to apply SBPYD programs is through pedagogical models. Two of the most utilized ones from the scientific studies that align with the guiding principles of PYD are the teaching personal and social responsibility model (TPSR; Hellison, 2011) and the sport education model (SE; Siedentop, 1998; Siedentop et al., 2004). These pedagogical models have been applied with positive results in different Spanish contexts and with different populations, ages, sports, and educational levels. They have become the pedagogical models that are most commonly used by researchers in Spain (Escartí et al., 2010a,b; Meroño et al., 2015, 2016; Fernández-Gavira et al., 2018; Camerino et al., 2019; Manzano-Sánchez and Valero- Valenzuela, 2019; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019, 2020; Valero- Valenzuela et al., 2020a; Carreres-Ponsoda et al., 2021). The TPSR model is one of the most relevant models aligned with the PYD framework, owing to its implementation in different countries, the wide variety of research studies about it, and the ease of its hybridization with other models (Escartí et al., 2009; Caballero Blanco et al., 2013; Pozo et al., 2018; Baptista et al., 2020; Sánchez-Alcaraz et al., 2020). It is characterized by strong instructor-participant relationships through specific guidelines, along with empowerment and personal and group reflections, carried out gradually. These tools aim for those involved to take responsibility for their actions at a personal and social level (Hellison et al., 2008). A characteristic framework was, therefore, designed that included the core values of the model, premises, levels of responsibility, instructor responsibilities, application format, suggested strategies, problem-solving, and evaluation (Hellison, 2011). The SE model was designed to provide authentic and enriching sports experiences (Siedentop, 1998). The basic characteristics of this model arise from the particularities of sports (Siedentop et al., 2004), which make it possible to pursue objectives beyond those of learning a given technical skill. For the creators of this model, a competent athlete will possess the necessary skills to participate satisfactorily in these and other activities that arise, understanding them, and are being able to apply and execute appropriate strategies depending on the complexity of the situation. There is no pedagogical model that is effective in all contexts and contents (Lund and Tannehill, 2010). In the words of Martinek and Hellison (2016, p. 13), “One size does not fit all (...). Drawing on personal strengths and available resources and augmenting interpersonal processes between youth and staff will be essential for (...) successful implementation.” To overcome these limitations, different pedagogical models have begun to be combined when implemented to adapt them to the intervention context, enhancing their educational effects, and reducing the limitations that may exist in the application of any given model in isolation (Haerens et al., 2011; González-Víllora Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program et al., 2019). According to González-Víllora et al. (2019, p. 13) “hybridizations could be considered a new and innovative trend that is necessary to increase the benefits and possibilities for the implementation of pedagogical models.” A previous research study has shown that these benefits have a positive impact in two main areas—sports skills and psychosocial variables (psychological, social, and personal development)—as long as a logical and appropriate use of the intervention is carried out (Fernández-Río et al., 2016). The proposal presented in this study analyzes personal responsibility (PR) and social responsibility (SR), a variable that falls within the psychosocial field proposed by the previous authors. Hybridizations of TPSR or SE with different pedagogical models are especially frequent. The separate combination of TPSR—or SE—with other models has obtained positive results when applied in educational contexts in sports (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Pritchard and Mc-Collum, 2009; Mesquita et al., 2012; Caballero-Blanco, 2015; Araújo et al., 2016, 2019; Valero-Valenzuela et al., 2020b), which strengthens support for the usefulness of designing hybrid programs that combine the benefits of both models (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016a,b, 2017; Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Muñoz-Llerena et al., 2019). In the previous research studies, the feasibility of hybridizing TPSR and SE has been analyzed, with different studies considering SE suitable to combine with TPSR as long as the implemented programs are designed to offer the opportunity to experience all five levels of responsibility, noting that “the pressure and perceived importance of competitive sports can be useful in testing the depth of commitment to, and engagement with, the learning outcomes of TPSR” (Gordon, 2009, p. 15). Such studies have also pointed out that these two models share a common theory of learning (the constructivist theory; Hastie and Buchanan, 2000). However, Gordon (2009) considered that tensions might arise in the implementation of both models together in physical education (PE) classes when it comes to the use of games within sports practice and by the emphasis placed on internal (TPSR) vs. external (SE) sources of authority, as they have different purposes: SE aims to promote good sports skills, while TPSR aims to help youngsters become better people. In PE, a decision must, therefore, be made about which model should be prioritized, rather than attempting to meet the goals of both. Outside the regulated context of PE classes, the application of hybrid programs has seldom been addressed in scientific studies (González-Víllora et al., 2019). Only Muñoz-Llerena et al. (2019) have proposed a design for a PYD program hybridizing TPSR and SE for application, especially in team sports in extracurricular competitive contexts: the Team Sports Positive Development Program (TESPODEP). This hybridization was carried out bearing in mind the greater possibilities offered by hybridized pedagogical models to adapt to the intervention context and increase their effects on the participants. Using TPSR as a way to promote psychosocial development, complemented with the specific strategies of SE, contributes to promoting sports development while reinforcing the psychosocial gains obtained. In addition, the hybridization of these models allows the intervention to be adapted to a competitive team sports structure, which makes it possible to achieve, with the same intervention, improvements in a large number of participants and in a context in which winning is usually more important than the holistic development of the players. To verify the benefits of an implementation based on this program, this study analyzed the effects of this hybrid TESPODEP program on PR and SR in youth volleyball players in an extracurricular context. The rationale for this research study was to provide evidence for how the implementation of a hybrid TPSR+SE program might affect players in an out-of-school competitive team sports club, helping to fill the existing gap in the study while offering a flexible model specifically designed to be applied in team sports. Volleyball was chosen because of its differentiating characteristics from other sports. Unlike most team sports, volleyball is conditioned by the impossibility of retaining the ball; thus, it can only be played by hitting. This limitation influences the importance of technique in ball control and, therefore, the dependence between the collective contacts to win the point. The collaboration between teammates is crucial for scoring, when compared to other sports where a single player could score. In volleyball, except for the serve, the rest of the actions are sequential and depend on the previous and following ones, so cooperation or teamwork is of special relevance. Furthermore, in the initial stages the technical quality is lower, so it becomes essential to emphasize cooperative tactical behaviors, which compensate the limited mechanical efficiency, to achieve continuity in the game. Finally, the fact of not being able to hold the ball increases the timing demands of the game, which reinforces the need to achieve an adequate emotional state that encourages cooperation, decision-making, and autonomy in favor of the aims of the team. Competitive youth sport “can serve as an appropriate context conducive to PYD” (Ferreira dos Santos et al., 2018, p. 229), being a fertile platform that can lead to developments in life skills such as perseverance, respect, teamwork, or leadership (Santos and Martinek, 2018). It was chosen based on the need to increase the research field with more studies that employ rigorous methodology and the suitability of competition as a perfect setting to implement SBPYD models, due to the reduced number of participants and its voluntary access (Carreres- Ponsoda et al., 2021) and the focus on empowering personal and social strengths (Harwood and Johnston, 2016; Jørgensen et al., 2020). In addition, there is a need for more research studies to clarify our understanding of the development of life skills through competitive SBPYD programs (Jacobs and Wright, 2018). The study was put into practice based on a series of research questions and hypotheses. The main hypothesis was that the proposed intervention would promote the development of PR and SR in the participants. The research questions considered were as follows: What are coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions concerning teaching and learning personal and social responsibility as a consequence of the intervention? What is the impact of the TESPODEP program on athletes’ personal and social responsibility outcomes? To what extent do the quantitative responsibility data obtained agree with the findings Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program of the interviews and field notes on the development of personal and social responsibility perception in the players? MATERIALS AND METHODS Context The main goal of the intervention program was to train participants to become enthusiastic, competent, literate, and responsible sportspersons and be capable of leading a team and making decisions that benefit the whole group. The intervention took place in two subsidized schools in Seville (Spain), which presented similar sociodemographic profiles and belonged to neighborhoods with an upper-middle socioeconomic level. In Seville, federated sports clubs usually have a defined framework or guidelines for training programs. However, in clubs that are not part of a federated competition, it is common for each coach to work in his or her own way, and there is no consensus or guide on how to coach a team. In general, coaches tend to be focused on achieving victory rather than on the process of the personal development of each athlete. In the Catholic Schools Competition, where the intervention took place, they are somewhat more flexible and let the coach be the one who sets the model to follow. In this way, everything depends on the level of training and knowledge of the coach of this type of methodologies, far from those centered on execution models, typical of the courses of coaches. Research Design This study used a convergent mixed methods design (Figure 1), because this type of design acknowledges the inadequacy of qualitative or quantitative methods alone to capture trends and details in the context of the research studies (Creswell and Creswell, 2018), so the strengths of one approach cover the weaknesses of the other, thus providing more evidence for studying the research study problem and helping to answer questions that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone can (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). In the qualitative section, a design based on descriptive phenomenology was used (Moustakas, 1994; Giorgi, 2009), in which the researchers sought to describe the experiences lived by individuals for a specific phenomenon (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). In the quantitative section, a quasi-experimental design was used, in which there was no random assignment of participants to the experimental or control groups. This study was carried out with a pragmatic worldview, in which the focus was on the consequences of the research study and the question asked rather than the methods, thus employing multiple methods of data collection to inform the problems analyzed (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). This worldview is perfectly suited to the mixed methods design carried out in this work, and its philosophical assumptions are shown in Table 1. Sample According to the coaches, students, and schools that showed interest in, and commitment to, participating in the research study, sample selection was convenient and non-probabilistic (Patton, 2015). A total of 30 girls participated in the experimental (n=15, age =8.93 ±0.80) and control groups (n=15, age = 8.80 ±0.86) during the 2018/2019 school year. The coach for the experimental group was a 26-year-old man with experience of 4 years in managing volleyball youth teams. The coach for the control group was a 25-year-old woman with an experience of 5 years in coaching volleyball youth teams. Both coaches were graduates in Physical Activity and Sports Sciences and had a Level 2 Volleyball Coach qualification from the Andalusian Volleyball Federation. Both schools competed in the U-10 category in the Catholic Schools Competition, organized by the Catholic Schools Association of Seville. Both groups were selected because of their homogeneity in terms of sport (volleyball), gender (women), age (between 8 and 9 years old), training structure (two training sessions/week, 1.5 h/session, plus the weekend game), and season expectations (qualifying for the final phase of the competition). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) participation in the extracurricular volleyball activity at their schools; (b) willingness to participate in the study; (c) written consent of the parents/guardians; (d) attendance for at least 85% of the sessions; and (e) adequate program implementation fidelity. This study followed the ethical commitment guidelines defined by the Declaration of Helsinki regarding the consent, confidentiality, and anonymity of the participants through an agreement signed by the boards of the schools and the parents/guardians of the players. This study was also approved by the PhD Research Committee of the Pablo de Olavide University (internal code 2345-N-20). Variables The dependent variables analyzed were the two dimensions of responsibility: PR, which is the responsibility to assume the own actions of an individual and act in consideration of, and respect for, the value of people and things, and SR, which is defined as sensitivity toward the feelings and needs of colleagues, respecting their rights and cooperating and working together to achieve goals and negotiating conflicts (Jiménez and Durán, 2004). Both the objective perception of the level of each of the dimensions and the subjective perception of skills development in these dimensions throughout the intervention were analyzed. The independent variable was the TESPODEP program (Muñoz-Llerena et al., 2019), which is a hybridization of the TPSR and SE models, and was focused on the development of values such as leadership, decision-making, and PR and SR through team sports. The program, following the recommendations of Gordon (2009), used the general structure of the TPSR as a basis, adding the sport-specific elements that come from the SE, while using methodological strategies that arise from both the TPSR and SE (Table 2). A total of 37 sessions of 90 min plus 14 competition games were carried out, implementing sports content and a concrete responsibility level (Table 3). It must be considered that level 5 (transference) was implemented in all sessions of the program through the group reflection and self-evaluation, and this level was also the focus during games. A brief description of the characteristics of the TESPODEP program is included as Supplementary Material. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program FIGURE 1 | Convergent mixed methods design process. TABLE 1 | Philosophical assumptions of pragmatic worldview. Ontology Epistemology Axiology Methodology Rhetoric Singular and multiple realities Practicality Multiple stances Combination Formal or informal TABLE 2 | Team Sports Positive Development Program (TESPODEP) characteristics. E Description S P Educate participants to be players in the full meaning of the term, helping them to develop as competent, literate, enthusiastic, and responsible players, capable of leading the group and of making decisions that benefit the team. TPSR/SE MF Embedding, transference, empowerment, and being relational with youngsters TPSR O Develop volleyball-specific physical, technical, and tactical skills; participate at an appropriate level; share, be responsible, and lead the management of the athletic experiences; improve decision-making ability in sport; and apply the learned skills and abilities outside the program TPSR/SE RL 1- Establishing a positive group climate; 2- Participation and effort; 3 – Self-direction; 4- Help and leadership; 5- Transference TPSR/SE SS Relational time, awareness talk, action time, group reflection, and self-evaluation TPSR SSE Season, affiliation, formal competition, performance recording, festivity, and culmination event SE GM Setting expectations, giving opportunities for success, fostering social interaction, setting roles and tasks, mastery-oriented learning, leadership, giving voice, role in the evaluation, respect model, and transference TPSR SM Group control routines, guided practice, independent practice, conflict resolution, coach’s portfolio, and team identity SE E, Element; S, source; P, purpose; MF, methodological foundations; O, objectives; RL, responsibility level; SS, session structure; SSE, sport-specific element; GM, general methodological strategies; SM, specific methodological strategies. Instruments and Measures Semi-structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were chosen and elaborated ad hoc from the adaptation of other interviews used in interventions based on the TPSR model (Patton, 2015; Manzano-Sánchez and Valero-Valenzuela, 2019); the interview structure was designed to determine the perception of the players about their PR and SR skills. The questions asked were divided into four differentiated blocks. The first block aimed to assess the previous experience of the players in the practice of volleyball (e.g., “Had you practiced volleyball before starting this year?”) and their participation in other extracurricular activities, athletic or not (e.g., “Do you do any other after-school activity besides volleyball?”). The second block was oriented toward the perception of the players of their skills development after participation in the intervention program (e.g., “Do you think that the training sessions have helped you to be more responsible in training and competitions? And in your life outside of sport? Why?”). The third block focused on determining the perception of the players about the intervention program itself (e.g., “What do you think about trying to take care of the group’s positive climate?”). Finally, the fourth block focused on the perception of the players of the work of the coach (e.g., “Do you think the coach had a good relationship with the team? Have you felt comfortable with him/her?”). The full script of the interview is included as Supplementary Material. Field Notes Field notes were taken after each training session by the researcher, who also had the role of the coach in the team (full participation role). The structure of the field notes was elaborated ad hoc adapting a diary structure used in the previous research studies (Escartí et al., 2006), while aiming to recognize the implementation of the program in terms of objectives, contents, responsibility levels, and methodological strategies and documenting the perception of the researcher of PR and SR skills Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program TABLE 3 | Sessions, contents, and levels throughout the program. S Content RL 1 Overhead pass-T; Underarm pass-T I C Competition 5 2 Overhead pass-T; Underhand serve-Sec 1 3 Underarm pass-T; Underhand serve-Sec 1 C Competition 5 4 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M 1 5 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M 1 6 Overhead pass-P+M; Underhand serve-Sec 2 7 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 2 C Competition 5 8 Overhead pass-P+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 2 C Competition 5 9 Overhead pass-T; Underarm pass-T 1,2 10 Overhead pass-T; Underarm pass-T; Underhand serve-Sec 2 11 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M 2 12 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 2 C Competition 5 C Competition 5 13 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 3 14 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 3 C Competition 5 15 Overhead pass-T+M; Underarm pass-T+M; Underhand serve-Sec 3 C Competition 5 16 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 3 17 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P 3 18 Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 3 19 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 3 C Competition 5 20 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 3 21 Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 3 C Competition 5 22 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P 3 23 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-P 3 24 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-P 3 C Competition 5 25 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-Receiving; Underhand serve-P 4 26 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-Receiving; Underhand serve-P 4 27 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-P 4 28 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-Receiving; Underhand serve-P 4 (Continued) TABLE 3 | Continued S Content RL C Competition 5 29 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-P 4 30 Underarm pass-Receiving; Underhand serve-P 4 31 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-P 4 32 Overhead pass-Setting; Underarm pass-Receiving; Underhand serve-P 4 C Competition 5 33 Overhead pass-Setting+attack (jump); Underhand serve-P 4 34 Overhead pass-P; Underarm pass-P; Underhand serve-Sec 4 35 Overhead pass-P+attack (jump) 4 C Competition 5 36 Underarm pass-Receiving+defense; Underhand serve-P 4 37 Overhead pass-P+attack (jump) 4 RL, Responsibility level; I, introduction; S, session; T, technique; M, movement; Sec, security; P, precision; C, competition. of the participants. A model for the field notes is included as Supplementary Material. Personal and Social Responsibility Questionnaire To assess the responsibility variable in its PR and SR dimensions, the Personal and Social Responsibility Questionnaire (PSRQ; Li et al., 2008) was used and validated in the Spanish context by Escartí et al. (2011). The questionnaire consists of 14 items, seven each for PR (e.g., “I propose goals for myself”) and SR (e.g., “Respect for others”). All items are answered through a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1, totally disagree, to 6, totally in agreement with the formulation of the question. Confirmatory factor analysis [χ2 76 =161.36, p<0.001, comparative fit index (CFI) =0.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) =0.06, goodness of fit index (GFI) =0.89, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) =0.88, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) =0.06.] and internal consistency (=0.85 SR; =0.74 PR) indicate that the PSRQ is a useful instrument for assessing PR and SR levels and their evolution throughout the program. Procedure For the sample selection, an informative meeting was held with the parents of all of the players in each school, explaining the characteristics of the program and the procedure to be followed for all groups (experimental and control). Subsequently, the same protocol was followed with the players and coaches from each group, with emphasis on the voluntary nature of participation. The program was implemented in groups where there were 10 or more interested players, the coach was willing to implement the program, and the parents agreed to carry it out. The coach for the experimental group knew the fundamentals of the TPSR and SE programs and was the main person responsible for the design of the hybridization of the TESPODEP Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program program. However, following the indications of Escartí et al. (2009, 2010b) and Fernández-Gavira et al. (2018), 1 month before the intervention he received recycling training on the theoretical foundations, objectives, and methodological aspects of both the TPSR and the SE by experts in these programs (research coauthors of this study). After the training period, the design of the intervention program was revised, with minor modifications. Throughout the intervention (once a month), the coach of the experimental group met with experts in the program to continue with the training and to analyze the fidelity of the implementation (Manzano-Sánchez and Valero- Valenzuela, 2019). The fidelity of the program implementation was considered adequate after analyzing it and triangulating the data obtained from the TARE 2.0 observation instrument (Escartí et al., 2015; Manzano-Sánchez and Valero-Valenzuela, 2019), which assessed methodological strategies, participant behavior, and the field notes. The interviews were carried out in the final 2 weeks of training, once the program intervention had finished. The interviews were conducted with the players at the end of the session, without having established a time limit for each of them, which made it possible to collect between three and four interviews daily. The interview protocol was based on that proposed by Creswell and Creswell (2018). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were completed daily after the training session, between 30 and 90min after the end (depending on the availability of the researcher). All data were recorded in writing on a record sheet using the Microsoft Word (Office 365) software. The PSRQ was completed before the beginning of the training sessions, under the supervision of the main researcher, ensuring FIGURE 2 | Qualitative content analysis procedure. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program FIGURE 3 | Steps taken in the deductive approach. FIGURE 4 | Steps taken in the inductive approach. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program the anonymity and sincerity of the responses, and answering any doubts that might arise during the process. Before starting, the instructions for correct completion of the PSRQ were explained and emphasis was placed on maintaining a relaxed atmosphere to promote concentration and maximum accuracy in the answers (Escartí et al., 2009, 2010a, 2011; Valero-Valenzuela et al., 2020a). The reliability in the pretest and posttest was 0.76 and 0.87 for SR and 0.83 and 0.86 for PR. Data Analysis Interviews and Field Notes Qualitative content analysis (QCA) was the analysis strategy applied (Figure 2), utilizing the theme analysis technique, aiming to “retain the strengths of quantitative content analysis and against this background to develop techniques of systematic, qualitatively oriented text analysis” (Mayring, 2014, p. 39). Within the theme analysis technique of Mayring, a deductive approach was initially used to formulate the main categories of analysis based on the objectives of the study, semi-structured interview questions, and sections of the field diary (Figure 3); subsequently, the inductive approach was applied to formulate the secondary categories of analysis based on the emerging ideas of the participants about their perceptions on the development of PR and SR (Figure 4). The quality criteria applied in the qualitative analysis were chosen based on the reflections of Smith and McGannon (2018). These criteria were as follows: (1) methodological integrity procedure (Levitt et al., 2017); (2) intervention of another researcher as a critical friend (Brewer and Sparkes, 2011); and (3) triangulation of analysts (inter-coder reliability) and sources (using multiple data sources) (Patton, 2015; Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Table 4 shows the unification of all of these criteria within the methodological integrity procedure proposed by Levitt et al. (2017). This analysis process was carried out using the qualitative analysis software NVivoTM 12 Plus. Personal and Social Responsibility Questionnaire SPSS 21.0 software was used for the statistical analysis of the questionnaires and “psych” 1.4.2.3 of R 3.0.3 for the coefficient ω. For the PSRQ analysis, the main descriptive statistics were calculated, and normality tests were carried out. The asymmetry and kurtosis indicators of the variables were used for the univariate normality analyses, taking the limits of asymmetry and kurtosis in absolute values (Curran et al., 1996). Reliability analysis was carried out to check the internal consistency of the questionnaires. Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used, equal to or>0.70 (Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), and the omega coefficient was used (ω;McDonald, 1999). A repeated measures ANOVA was then carried out. A MANCOVA was used in the group factors (control group and experimental group) and two measurements (pretest and posttest), followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test to identify possible intragroup and intergroup differences and statistical power. Values of p<0.05 and p <0.01 were used for statistical significance. Integration The joint display technique was used for data integration (Guetterman et al., 2015; Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018), combining the data in a table and making interpretations based on the table. Four key aspects were followed (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018) to evaluate the quality of the research as a study that uses mixed methods: (1) The authors collected and analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data rigorously, taking into account research questions and hypotheses; (2) they then intentionally integrated the two types of data and their results; (3) these procedures were organized into specific research designs so that the study was developed in a logical way; and (4) these procedures were framed within theory and philosophy. The joint display was carried out using the Microsoft Excel (Office 365) software. RESULTS Interviews For the interview analysis, a first deductive coding was used on the basis of the existing studies and theory (Li et al., 2008; Escartí et al., 2011; Hellison, 2011) to determine the main categories of each dependent variable analyzed (PR and SR), establishing the categories of autonomy and effort (PR), and respect and caring and helping (SR). Once deductively encoded, inductive analysis of the coding was performed (Mayring, 2014). The coding frequencies for each category analyzed are shown in Table 5. Personal Responsibility Personal responsibility included the main categories of autonomy, effort, and responsibility for the equipment. Autonomy This category refers to the subjective perception of the player about her ability to be independent in tasks, without the need for coach supervision, and to set her own goals and develop an action plan to achieve them. This category included the secondary categories of self-confidence, goal setting, and autonomous work. Self-confidence is an abstract skill, and although several players considered that they had developed it, they nevertheless found it difficult to define why they thought they had improved. In particular, six players referred to having learned to trust themselves. P04: “I (have learned to) set my own goals and trust myself.” P07: “Because I don’t forget things.” In relation to goal setting, most of the players considered that they had acquired the ability to set goals, both in sport and in their daily lives, and that they were capable of acting to achieve those goals. P03: “I now make more decisions than before, because before I didn’t make any decisions, but now I say, well now I’m going to try to do this just because, because it turns out badly or (...) just because I want.” Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program TABLE 7 | Descriptive statistics and reliability analysis. Variable M SD α-Pre α-Post ω-Pre ω-Post Pre Post Pre Post PR 5.13 5.30 1.02 0.70 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.73 SR 5.24 5.15 0.54 0.74 0.70 0.60 0.80 0.71 M, Mean; SD, standard deviation. TABLE 8 | Intergroup and intragroup analysis. Variable Group Pre Post M SD p M SD p PR Experimental Control Comparative 5.13 5.13 5.13 1.10 0.97 1.02 0.33 5.48 5.13 5.30 0.63 0.76 0.70 0.18 SR Experimental Control Comparative 5.33 5.16 5.24 0.68 0.37 0.54 0.89 5.07 5.24 5.15 0.90 0.57 0.74 0.52 M, Mean; SD, standard deviation. In terms of SR, it seems that practically all of them developed skills related to this dimension. The greatest perceived development was shown in conflict resolution, in respect for cohabitation rules, and in helping others, capacities that are mostly considered to be capable of transferring to other contexts. To a lesser extent, several participants also improved their knowledge about interpersonal communication and relationships. These results could be attributed to the implicit characteristics of the TPSR program, because, through various aspects such as group and personal reflections or the integration of the content of responsibility in the tasks, this type of social development was promoted (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000; Gutiérrez et al., 2014; Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández- Río, 2016b, 2017; Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017). Regarding the perception of the coach, the results are in line with the insights of the players. As the intervention progressed, positive learning was observed both in PR (through the fostering of the capacity for effort, goal setting and action plans, being autonomous in tasks, and being able to train without exhaustive supervision of those responsible for the group) and SR (developing their skills of respect for others, resolving conflicts autonomously, interpersonal communication, and ability to help others and learn the importance of respecting the feelings and rights of others, the cohabitation rules, and the decisions of the group leader). From the perception of the coach, the internalization of content and prosocial skills through group and personal reflections and self-evaluations carried out at the end of the sessions seem to be a key aspect in the acquisition of these lessons. Results in line with these perceptions have been presented in previous research studies and have been related to the perception of the teacher of the usefulness of PYD programs (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Gutiérrez et al., 2014; Manzano-Sánchez and Valero-Valenzuela, 2019) and their effect on the increase in PR and SR (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández- Río, 2017). The importance of self-reflection and critical thinking to interiorize learning has also been highlighted in the study (Stran et al., 2012). One of the fundamental aspects that can be deduced from this study is the achievement of transference by the participants. They seem to be capable of transferring those lessons mentioned above into their daily lives. This transference is an essential characteristic of PYD programs that use sports as a means to achieve this skill transfer (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Hellison et al., 2008; Hellison, 2011; Turnnidge et al., 2014; Chinkov and Holt, 2016; Whitley et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2020). It is possible that the nature of volleyball (team sport, cooperative, etc.), together with the structure of the task assignments used based on the SE model and the methodological structuring of the TPSR, made possible the achievement of good levels of transfer in these dimensions of responsibility. However, not all perceptions were positive. Within the PR variable, reference was made to negative or incomplete aspects of learning with respect to goal setting, autonomy, effort, participation, responsibility for the equipment, and the performance of roles. In SR, negative perceptions of learning are indicated when resolving differences between others, in interpersonal relationships, in helping others, and in respect for others. This lack of development in PR and SR, although it differs from what was previously stated, also occurred in a study based on implementations of pedagogical models in school-age participants (Gutiérrez et al., 2014). However, these considerations must be interpreted with caution, because most of them refer to specific players and situations, and not to the group as a whole. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to affirm that not all of the players had learned everything that the program can offer. Other individual social or psychological traits, as well Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program TABLE 9 | Integration. V PR SR PSRQ Pre 5.13 ±1.02 Post 5.30 ±0.70 Sig. 0.37 Pre 5.24 ±0.54 Post 5.15 ±0.74 Sig. 042 MT Self-direction Effort Responsible for the equipment Respect Caring and helping I Cg P11: “It depends on what (the goal is). Because now I am a bit lazy.” P11: “That just when we started level 2 (of the program), which was participation and effort, just on those days I neither made any effort nor participated because it was very hot. (…) When I’m hot I don’t really want to learn.” P04: “First, (…) because I lose my sweatshirt a lot. And second, because when we are playing, when we are playing and all that in couples, I lose the ball. A lot of balls start to fall, okay, and now I hit another, I don’t know what, and I’m not responsible for the ball. And then, with my backpack, I always forget my backpack, and that doesn’t help me.” P05: “Yes and no (I have learned). Because I keep bugging my brother. (Although already) I don’t hit my brother. But if he hits me, I hit him.” No data available Ds P03: “It was very good for me, because in addition to the fact that I could do what I felt would be better—in my life apart from volleyball as well—I have also said: well, look, this can be better for others, so I’m going to do it.” P15: “In other words, effort—because I already make more of an effort (…) in games, I no longer treat it like a joke, because before I treated it like a joke. (...) And participation, well... I try to participate in everything.” No data available P15: “Because you have taught us to resolve conflicts with the… with the list you gave us. (…) I know, now, that if we have a conflict, then we tell you “We are going to solve the conflict,” and we solve it …” P04: “(I have learned) How to treat people, more or less in the ways that should or should not be—how you have to behave and how you should not behave and help others. (…) (And outside the program) To pay more attention to others, to try to resolve more conflicts, to play more volleyball, and to help others when they are alone or something, to try to improve what happens to them.” FN Cg “In the final reflection, the conclusion is reached that, if at a specific moment the coaches have to attend to urgent things, the group cannot stop training and start to fall into chaos in training.” 13th session “The players start the session well (warm-up and task 1), but the moment we advance to task 2 (somewhat more complex), they totally disconnect and each one begins to go on their own terms, to talk and stop training. I try to make them aware of the importance of level 2 when it comes to improving in sport and some of them get more involved, but others go their own way.” 7th session No data available “The group does not entirely respect the coach’s instructions, and they barely make any self-criticisms in the personal reflection.” 1st session “The second coach (…) did not go to training because she has a birthday, which indicates a great lack of commitment and respect for her teammates.” 25th session Ds “Last session of level 3, this seems to be already mastered and I see players with the ability to function autonomously.” 23rd session “In the final reflection, the conclusion is reached that in this session there has been progress within level 2, and they have done their part (both players and coaches) to carry out the tasks with good participation and attitude.” 6th session No data available “She has been able to resolve a conflict between three players autonomously, demonstrating her development in leadership, decision-making, and conflict resolution skills.” 2nd session “In the final reflection, they are asked about their experience with the different styles, and which style they believe is the most important when dealing with other people, reaching the conclusion that it is the assertive style that best suits effective and adequate communication.” 35th session V, Variable; MT, main categories; I, interviews; FN, field notes; Cg, congruent; Ds, discrepant; Sig, significance. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program as previous experiences practicing the sport, could have had an influence on these results. Integrating the Data: How Personal Perceptions Relate to Statistical Results Regarding the PSRQ, the results indicate that the intergroup (experimental and control) and intragroup (experimental) differences are not significant, and therefore, it is understood that there were no differences within or between the two groups in PR and SR when comparing before and after, although the αand ωvalues obtained are sufficient to accept the reliability of the instrument under the conditions used in this study (Nunnally, 1978; Campo-Arias and Oviedo, 2008). These results differ from those shown in the study (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016b; Escartí et al., 2018; Manzano-Sánchez and Valero-Valenzuela, 2019; Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019; Valero- Valenzuela et al., 2020a), perhaps because, as a general rule, published studies always present statistically significant results. This non-significance in the data could be due to the small sample size, which might not be large enough to allow the appearance of differences between and within the groups. In data integration, because no significant positive results were reported in the PSRQ, the results obtained at the quantitative and qualitative levels differ to a great extent. Although there are some congruent results, because not all of the players perceived improvements in all of the analyzed aspects of PR and SR, nor did the coach attribute significant development to all categories, we must be cautious in drawing conclusions due to the relativity of the results: The majority of the group seem to have developed their PR and SR, but not all of the players have developed all of the capabilities that PR and SR comprise, and not all of them are capable of using them in all the situations that might arise. Ensuring that the integrated data are 100% congruent is a complex task (O’Cathain et al., 2007; Slonim-Nevo and Nevo, 2009). In this study, we started from a more general conception of the dimensions of PR and SR (PSRQ), and those dimensions were compared with participant learning in much more concrete and deeper aspects within those dimensions (main and secondary categories in interviews and field notes), which makes it difficult to achieve a majority of congruent results in the integration, especially if they differ so much. In this respect, the authors considered that there may be greater confidence in the results obtained at a qualitative level, because the small sample used may lead to the absence of significant results in the PSRQ, following what has been carried out in other investigations that used convergent mixed methods (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). The data integration was carried out following the criteria to ensure the trustworthiness of the study. Following Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), it can be stated that both the qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed rigorously, taking into account the research questions and hypotheses, because data of both types were collected based on the objectives and hypotheses raised in the study, following adequate procedures for their thematic and statistical analysis, respectively. The two types of data and their results were intentionally integrated, in line with the stated reasons for choosing a convergent mixed methods design for the study and integration of the results obtained through a joint display to later discuss the congruencies and discrepancies of the results and then draw a conclusion about them. These procedures were organized into specific research designs so that the study was undertaken in a logical way, and all elements fit together logically and consistently. These procedures were also framed within theory and philosophy, appropriately marrying the pragmatic paradigm and the PYD theory on which the study was based with the mixed methods designs used. These criteria have been taken into account in multiple studies that use mixed methods to ensure their reliability (Ames et al., 2009; Craig et al., 2019; Vázquez-Diz et al., 2019; Leiter et al., 2020; Valero-Valenzuela et al., 2020a; Weiss et al., 2020). Theoretical and Practical Implications This study helps to fill the gap in the study related to the effects of SBPYD programs in competitive settings by designing a hybrid program that could serve as a reference in team sports interventions based on PYD. Another strength of this research study is its contribution to the mixed methods research field, which is not widely used in competitive sports interventions. From a practical view, this study may provide strategies for coaches and teachers in the design and implementation of training exercises that aim to enhance decision-making, leadership, and life skills, transferring them to the daily lives of the participants. At early ages, these improvements can be difficult to achieve, so the coach should create learning environments to improve these capabilities. TESPODEP is a well-structured intervention program that aims to overcome these limitations, providing useful guidelines for coaches. Some recommendations to coaches when intervening within the competitive sport could be as follows: (a) set two different types of goals, sportive goals, and life skill goals; (b) integrate PYD strategies into training tasks; (c) use the methodological strategies offered to facilitate fostering PYD and life skill learning; (d) make all players play all roles throughout the season and let them make their own decisions; and (e) keep a balance between sports results and PYD intervention. This study has some limitations. The main limitation is the sample size, which, although it presents an adequate and sufficient size to obtain relevant information for the scientific community at a qualitative level, seems to be insufficient to obtain significant results at a quantitative level (Creswell and Creswell, 2018; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). It should also be noted that this study was carried out with only one experimental group, in a specific sociocultural and socioeconomic context, in a single sport, and in a single category (limited age range) and competitive level. In addition, all of the participants were girls. This means that it is not possible to determine whether there are differences between genders, ages, sports, levels of sports demand, or socioeconomic/sociocultural levels. To alleviate the limitations of this study, the following lines for future research studies are recommended: (a) to increase the sample size to draw on statistical data that contribute to a better understanding of the research question; (b) to carry out the study in different team sports, ages, competitive levels, and/or socioeconomic/sociocultural levels to determine how Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program TESPODEP works in different samples and settings; and (c) to include both genders in the sample to determine differences between genders in terms of life skill acquisition. CONCLUSIONS Hybridizing TPSR and SE models made it possible to design a program adapted to the intervention context in which it was applied (competitive extracurricular sports) to foster PR and SR and teach volleyball technical/tactical aspects in grassroots sport. TESPODEP made adaption to the intervention context (extracurricular competitive youth mini-volleyball) possible, where the TPSR structure contributed to fostering PR and SR throughout the intervention, while SE helped to incorporate the key elements of team sports for transferring learning to competition and the daily lives of the participants. In general terms, the analysis and subsequent reflection on that analysis showed that the implementation of the hybrid program TESPODEP seemed to present positive effects in terms of the development of PR and SR in youth girl volleyball players in an extracurricular setting. Regarding PR, both the perceptions of players and coach indicated that they developed skills related to autonomy, effort, and responsibility with respect to the equipment throughout the intervention program. Concerning SR, again, the perceptions of players and coach both indicated that they acquired skills related to respect and caring and helping others. The insights of both players and the coach seem to indicate that the group positively perceived their learning and development in the analyzed dimensions. Although the quantitative data do not agree with the findings of the interviews and field notes on the development of PR and SR, as there were no statistically significant differences between or within groups, the authors consider that the main reason for this lack of positive results may have been the limited sample, which was not sufficient to achieve significant differences, and thus, the qualitative results derived from the interviews and field notes are more reliable for drawing conclusions about this study. This study can serve as a reference to promote the design and implementation of hybrid TPSR+SE intervention programs to foment PYD through competitive team sports. However, it is necessary to increase the research field about this type of program, incorporating successful strategies like MINDSCAPE (Whitley, 2021) to foster long-term behavioral changes and assess them through longitudinal studies (e.g., throughout a whole sports category). It is also essential to come to an understanding with the coach about the program design, in addition to providing prior training about its key elements, ensuring implementation fidelity. Furthermore, using triangulation is essential to enhance the validity and reliability of the data. In conclusion, the hybrid program TESPODEP seems to be effective to develop PR and SR in youth girl athletes in a competitive extracurricular youth sports context. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. ETHICS STATEMENT The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Pablo de Olavide University’s Ph.D. Research Committee. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS AM-L, PC-B, and EH-H elaborated the conceptualization, the methodological framework, the data validation, and the original draft writing, including results, discussion, and conclusions. AM-L and EH-H carried out the data analysis. AG-d-A took charge of reviewing and editing the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. FUNDING This research has been funded by a 2019 research grant from the PAIDI research groups of the Pablo de Olavide University. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg. 2021.675532/full#supplementary-material REFERENCES Ames, G. M., Duke, M. R., Moore, R. S., and Cunradi, C. B. (2009). The impact of occupational culture on drinking behavior of young adults in the U.S. Navy. J. Mix. Methods Res. 3, 129–150. doi: 10.1177/1558689808328534 Antón-Candanedo, A., and Fernández-Río, J. (2018). Hibridando modelos pedagógicos para la mejora de la comprensión táctica de estudiantes: una investigación a través del Duni. Ágora para la Educ. Física y el Deport. 19:257. doi: 10.24197/aefd.2-3.2017.257-276 Araújo, R., Hastie, P., Lohse, K. R., Bessa, C., and Mesquita, I. (2019). The longterm development of volleyball game play performance using sport education and the step-game-approach model. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 25, 311–326. doi: 10.1177/1356336X17730307 Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., Hastie, P. A., and Pereira, C. (2016). Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-game-approach volleyball unit. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 22, 185–200. doi: 10.1177/1356336X15597 927 Baptista, C., Corte-Real, N., Regueiras, L., Seo, G., Hemphill, M., Pereira, A., et al. (2020). Teaching personal and social responsibility after school: a systematic review. Cuad. Psicol. del Deport. 20, 1–25. doi: 10.6018/cpd.346 851 Brewer, J. D., and Sparkes, A. C. (2011). Young people living with parental bereavement: insights from an ethnographic study of a UK childhood bereavement service. Soc. Sci. Med. 72, 283–290. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.032 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program Caballero Blanco, P., Delgado Noguera, M. Á., and Escart,í, A. (2013). Analysis of teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes applied in USA and Spain. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 8, 427–441. doi: 10.4100/jhse.2012.82.10 Caballero, P. (2015). El desarrollo positivo en los programas de actividad física y el deporte. Emasf 32, 1–15. Caballero-Blanco, P. (2015). Design, implementation and assessment of an outdoor activities programme to promote personal and social responsibility in professional training students. Cuad. Psicol. del Deport. 15, 179–194. doi: 10.4321/S1578-84232015000200020 Camerino, O., Valero-Valenzuela, A., Prat, Q., Manzano Sánchez, D., and Castañer, M. (2019). Optimizing education: a mixed methods approach oriented to Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR). Front. Psychol. 10:1439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01439 Campo-Arias, A., and Oviedo, H. C. (2008). Propiedades Psicométricas de una Escala: la Consistencia Interna. Rev. Salud Pública 10, 831–839. doi: 10.1590/S0124-00642008000500015 Carreres-Ponsoda, F., Escart,í, A., Jimenez-Olmedo, J. M., and Cortell-Tormo, J. M. (2021). Effects of a teaching personal and social responsibility model intervention in competitive youth sport. Front. Psychol. 12:624018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624018 Casey, A., and Dyson, B. (2009). The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 15, 175–199. doi: 10.1177/1356336X09345222 Chinkov, A. E., and Holt, N. L. (2016). Implicit transfer of life skills through participation in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 28, 139–153. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2015.1086447 Craig, P. J., Barcelona, B., Aytur, S., Amato, J., and Young, S. J. (2019). Using inclusive sport for social change in Malawi, Africa. Ther. Recreation J. 53, 244–263. doi: 10.18666/TRJ-2019-V53-I3-9720 Creswell, J. W., and Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., and Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol. Methods 1, 16–29. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 Escartí, A., Buelga, S., Gutiérrez, M., and Pascual, C. (2009). El desarrollo positivo a través de la actividad física y el deporte: el programa de responsabilidad personal y social. Rev. Psicol. Gen. Apl. 62, 45–52. Escartí, A., Gutiérrez, M., and Pascual, C. (2011). Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española del Cuestionario de Responsabilidad Personal y Social en contextos de educación física. Rev. Psicol. del Deport 20, 119–130. Escartí, A., Gutiérrez, M., Pascual, C., and Llopis, R. (2010a). Implementation of the personal and social responsibility model to improve self-efficacy during physical education classes for primary school children. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 10, 387–402. Escartí, A., Gutiérrez, M., Pascual, C., and Marín, D. (2010b). Application of Hellison’s teaching personal and social responsibility model in physical education to improve self-efficacy for adolescents at risk of dropping-out of school. Span. J. Psychol. 13, 667–676. doi: 10.1017/S113874160000233X Escartí, A., Gutiérrez, M., Pascual, C., Marín, D., Martínez, C., and Chacón, Y. (2006). Enseñando responsabilidad personal y social a un grupo de adolescentes de riesgo: un estudio ≪observacional≫.Rev. Educ. 341, 373–396. Escartí, A., Llopis-Goig, R., and Wright, P. M. (2018). Assessing the implementation fidelity of a school-based teaching personal and social responsibility program in physical education and other subject areas. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 37, 12–23. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0200 Escartí, A., Wright, P. M., Pascual, C., and Gutiérrez, M. (2015). Tool for Assessing Responsibility-based Education (TARE) 2.0: instrument revisions, inter-rater reliability, and correlations between observed teaching strategies and student behaviors. Univers. J. Psychol. 3, 55–63. doi: 10.13189/ujp.2015.030205 Fernández-Gavira, J., Jiménez-Sánchez, M. B., and Fernández-Truan, J. C. (2018). Deporte e Inclusión Social: aplicación del Programa de Responsabilidad Personal y Social en adolescentes. Rev. Humanidades 34, 39–58. doi: 10.5944/rdh.34.2018.19209 Fernández-Río, J., and Menéndez-Santurio, J. I. (2017). Teachers and students’ perceptions of a hybrid sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility learning unit. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 36, 185–196. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0077 Fernández-Río, J., Calderón, A., Hortigüela Alcal,á, D., Pérez-Pueyo, Á., and Aznar Cebamanos, M. (2016). Modelos pedagógicos en Educación Física: Consideraciones pedagógicas para docentes. Rev. Española Educ. Física y Deport 413, 55–75. Ferreira dos Santos, F., de, S., Camir,é, M., and da Fonte Campos, P. H. (2018). Youth sport coaches’ role in facilitating positive youth development in Portuguese field hockey. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 16, 221–234. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1187655 Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côt,é, J., and Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: an avenue to foster positive youth development. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 10, 19–40. doi: 10.1080/1740898042000334890 García-García, J., Manzano-Sánchez, D., Belando-Pedreño, N., and Valero- Valenzuela, A. (2020). Personal and social responsibility programme effects, prosocial behaviours, and physical activity levels in adolescents and their families. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:3184. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093184 Giorgi, A. (2009). The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University Press. Gonzalez, M., Kokozos, M., Byrd, C. M., and McKee, K. E. (2020). Critical positive youth development: a framework for centering critical consciousness. J. Youth Dev. 15, 24–43. doi: 10.5195/jyd.2020.859 González-Víllora, S., Evangelio, C., Sierra-Díaz, J., and Fernández-Río, J. (2019). Hybridizing pedagogical models: a systematic review. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 25, 1056–1074. doi: 10.1177/1356336X18797363 Gordon, B. (2009). Merging teaching personal and social responsibility with sport education: a marriage made in heaven or hell? ACHPER Heal. Lifestyles J. 56, 13–16. doi: 10.26686/wgtn.12830720.v1 Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., and Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann. Fam. Med. 13, 554–561. doi: 10.1370/afm.1865 Gutiérrez, D., García-López, L. M., Chaparro-Jilete, R., and Fernández- Sánchez, A. J. (2014). Sport education model in second grade: teachers and students’ perceptions. Cuad. Psicol. del Deport 14, 131–143. doi: 10.4321/S1578-84232014000200014 Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., and De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011). Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest 63, 321–338. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2011.10483684 Harwood, C., and Johnston, J. (2016). “Positive youth development and talent development: is there a best of both worlds?,” in Positive Youth Development Through Sport, ed. N. L. Holt (London, UK: Routledge), 113–125. doi: 10.4324/9781315709499-10 Hastie, P. A., and Buchanan, A. M. (2000). Teaching responsibility through sport education: prospects of a coalition. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 71, 25–35. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2000.10608877 Hastie, P. A., and Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid sport education—teaching games for understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 11, 1–27. doi: 10.1080/17408980500466813 Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Activity, 3rd Edn. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. doi: 10.5040/9781718208919 Hellison, D., Martinek, T. J., and Walsh, D. (2008). “Sport and responsible leadership among youth,” in Positive Youth Development Through Sport, ed. N. L. Holt (Abingdon: Routledge), 49–60. Holt, N. L., and Neely, K. C. (2011). Positive youth development through sport: a review. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. del Ejerc. y el Deport. 6, 299–316. Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camir,é, M., Côt,é, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., et al. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 10, 1–49. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704 Ivy, V. N., Richards, K. A. R., Lawson, M. A., and Alameda-Lawson, T. (2018). Lessons learned from an after-school program: building personal and social responsibility. J. Youth Dev. 13, 162–175. doi: 10.5195/JYD.2018. 606 Jacobs, J. M., and Wright, P. M. (2018). Transfer of life skills in sport-based youth development programs: a conceptual framework bridging learning to application. Quest 70, 81–99. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2017.1348304 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 20 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program Jiménez, P. J., and Durán, L. J. (2004). Propuesta de un programa para educar en valores a través de la actividad física y el deporte. Apunts 77, 25–29. Jørgensen, H., Lemyre, P.-N., and Holt, N. (2020). Multiple learning contexts and the development of life skills among Canadian junior national team biathletes. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 32, 392–415. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2019.1570570 Larson, R. W., and Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychol. Bull. 125, 701–736. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.701 Leiter, E., Finkelstein, A., Donchin, M., Greenberg, K. L., Keidar, O., Wetzler, S., et al. (2020). Integration of mixed methods in community-based participatory research: development of a disease prevention intervention for ultra-orthodox jewish women. Am. J. Heal. Promot. 34, 479–489. doi: 10.1177/0890117120906965 Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., and Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: promoting methodological integrity. Qual. Psychol. 4, 2–22. doi: 10.1037/qup0000082 Li, W., Wright, P. M., Rukavina, P. B., and Pickering, M. (2008). Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 27, 167–179. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.27.2.167 Lund, J., and Tannehill, D. (2010). Standards-Based Physical Education Curriculum Development, 2nd Edn. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Manzano-Sánchez, D., Conte-Marín, L., Gómez-López, M., and Valero- Valenzuela, A. (2020). Applying the personal and social responsibility model as a school-wide project in all participants: teachers’ views. Front. Psychol. 11:579. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00579 Manzano-Sánchez, D., and Valero-Valenzuela, A. (2019). Implementation of a model-based programme to promote personal and social responsibility and its effects on motivation, prosocial behaviours, violence and classroom climate in primary and secondary education. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:4259. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214259 Manzano-Sánchez, D., Valero-Valenzuela, A., Conde-Sánchez, A., and Chen, M.-Y. (2019). Applying the personal and social responsibility model-based program: differences according to gender between basic psychological needs, motivation, life satisfaction and intention to be physically active. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:2326. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132326 Martinek, T., and Hellison, D. (2016). Teaching personal and social responsibility: past, present and future. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 87, 9–13. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2016.1157382 Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt: Beltz. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_13 McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test Theory. A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Menéndez-Santurio, J. I., and Fernández-Río, J. (2016a). Hibridación de los modelos de Educación Deportiva y Responsabilidad Personal y Social: una experiencia a través de un programa de kickboxing educativo. Retos 30, 113–121. doi: 10.47197/retos.v0i30.38772 Menéndez-Santurio, J. I., and Fernández-Río, J. (2016b). Violencia, responsabilidad, amistad y necesidades psicológicas básicas: efectos de un programa de Educación Deportiva y Responsabilidad Personal y Social. Rev. Psicodidact. 21, 245–260. doi: 10.1387/RevPsicodidact.15269 Menéndez-Santurio, J. I., and Fernández-Río, J. (2017). Responsabilidad social, necesidades psicológicas básicas, motivación intrínseca y metas de amistad en educación física. Retos 32, 134–139. doi: 10.47197/retos.v0i32.52385 Meroño, L., Calderón, A., and Hastie, P. A. (2015). Efecto de una intervención basada en el modelo de Educación Deportiva sobre variables psicológicas en nadadores federados. Cuad. Psicol. del Deport 15, 35–46. doi: 10.4321/S1578-84232015000200005 Meroño, L., Calderón, A., and Hastie, P. A. (2016). Effect of sport education on the technical learning and motivational climate of junior high performance swimmers. RICYDE Rev. Int. Ciencias del Deport 12, 182–198. doi: 10.5232/ricyde2016.04407 Mesquita, I., Farias, C., and Hastie, P. A. (2012). The impact of a hybrid Sport education–invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 18, 205–219. doi: 10.1177/1356336X12440027 Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781412995658 Muñoz-Llerena, A., Hernández-Hernández, E., and Caballero-Blanco, P. (2019). “Diseño de un programa de desarrollo positivo a través de los deportes de equipo,” in Metodologías Activas en Ciencias del Deporte Vol. I, eds. P. J. Ruiz-Montero and A. Baena-Extremera (Sevilla, España: Wanceulen), 203–242. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill. Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., and Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1, 147–163. doi: 10.1177/1558689806299094 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice, 4th Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A., and Van Raalte, J. L. (2008). “Youth development through sport: it’s all about relationships,” in Positive Youth Development Through Sport, ed. N. L. Holt (Abingdon: Routledge) 61–70. Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., and Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. Sport Psychol. 19, 63–80. doi: 10.1123/tsp.19.1.63 Pierce, S., Gould, D., and Camiré, M. (2017). Definition and model of life skills transfer. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 10, 186–211. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2016.1199727 Pozo, P., Grao-Cruces, A., and Pérez-Ordás, R. (2018). Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 24, 56–75. doi: 10.1177/1356336X16664749 Pritchard, T., and Mc-Collum, S. (2009). The sport education tactical model. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 80, 31–38. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2009.10598392 Sánchez-Alcaraz, B. J., Courel-Ibáñez, J., Sánchez, C., Valero-Valenzuela, A., and Gómez-Mármol, A. (2020). El modelo de responsabilidad personal y social a través del deporte: revisión bibliográfica. Retos 37, 755–762. doi: 10.47197/retos.v37i37.67890 Santos, F., and Martinek, T. J. (2018). Facilitating positive youth development through competitive youth sport: opportunities and strategies. Strategies 31, 47–49. doi: 10.1080/08924562.2018.1516443 Siedentop, D. (1998). What is sport education and how does it work? J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 69, 18–20. doi: 10.1080/07303084.1998.10605528 Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., and Van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete Guide to Sport Education, 2nd Edn. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Slonim-Nevo, V., and Nevo, I. (2009). Conflicting findings in mixed methods research: an illustration from an Israeli study on immigration. J. Mix. Methods Res. 3, 109–128. doi: 10.1177/1558689808330621 Smith, B., and McGannon, K. R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 11, 101–121. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357 Stran, M., Sinelnikov, O., and Woodruff, E. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 18, 287–308. doi: 10.1177/1356336X12450789 Theokas, C., Danish, S. J., Hodge, K., Heke, I., and Forneris, T. (2008). “Enhancing life skills through sport for children and youth,” in Positive Youth Development Through Sport, ed. N. L. Holt (Abingdon: Routledge), 71–81. Turnnidge, J., Côt,é, J., and Hancock, D. J. (2014). Positive youth development from sport to life: explicit or implicit transfer? Quest 66, 203–217. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2013.867275 Valero-Valenzuela, A., Camerino, O., Manzano-Sánchez, D., Prat, Q., and Castañer, M. (2020a). Enhancing learner motivation and classroom social climate: a mixed methods approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1–14. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155272 Valero-Valenzuela, A., Gregorio García, D., Camerino, O., and Manzano, D. (2020b). Hybridisation of the teaching personal and social responsibility model and gamification in physical education. Apunt. Educ. Física y Deport. 141, 63–74. doi: 10.5672/apunts.2014-0983.es.(2020/3)0. 141.08 Vázquez-Diz, J. A., Morillo-Baro, J. P., Reigal, R. E., Morales-Sánchez, V., and Hernández-Mendo, A. (2019). Mixed methods in decision-making through polar coordinate technique: differences by gender on beach handball specialist. Front. Psychol. 10:1627. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01627 Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 21 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532 Muñoz-Llerena et al. Responsibility Development in Volleyball Program Weiss, M. R., Kipp, L. E., Phillips Reichter, A., and Bolter, N. D. (2020). Evaluating girls on the run in promoting positive youth development: group comparisons on life skills transfer and social processes. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 32, 172–182. doi: 10.1123/pes.2019-0252 Weiss, M. R., Stuntz, C. P., Bhalla, J. A., Bolter, N. D., and Price, M. S. (2013). “More than a game”: impact of The first tee life skills programme on positive youth development: project introduction and Year 1 findings. Qual. Res. Sport. Exerc. Heal. 5, 214–244. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2012.712997 Weiss, M. R., and Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M. (2009). Promoting positive youth development through physical activity. Pres. Counc. Phys. Fit. Sport Dig. 10, 1–8. Whitley, M. A., Hayden, L. A., and Gould, D. (2016). Growing up in the Kayamandi Township: II. Sport as a setting for the development and transfer of desirable competencies. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 14, 305–322. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2015.1036095 Whitley, M. A. (2021). Using behavioral economics to promote positive youth development through sport. J. Sport Psychol. Action 1–11. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2021.1883783 Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Copyright © 2021 Muñoz-Llerena, Hernández-Hernández, García-de-Alcaraz and Caballero-Blanco. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 22 August 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 675532