151
Publishe : EDUCATION GENIUS SOLUTIONS
Re iew Type:
Double Blind Pee Re iew
Vol. 3 No.4 2025
Resea ch Conso ium A chi e
P(ISSN) :
3007-0031
E(ISSN) : 3007-004X
h ps:// c-a chi e.com/index.php/Jou nal/abou
COACHES ‘BEHAVIOUR AND ITS INFLUENCES ON FEMALE
ATHLETES’ SATISFACTION
Ma yam Zahid
FG Deg ee College o Women, Kha ian Can
Email: ma yamzahid200[email p o ec ed]
Tosee Ahmed
Muslim You h Uni e si y, Islamabad
Email: [email p o ec ed]
Muhammad Talha I ikha (Co esponding Au ho )
Assis an P o esso , FG Deg ee College o Women, Kha ian Can
Email: [email p o ec ed]
Muhammad Tahi Nazee
P o esso , Depa men o Spo s Sciences, Uni e si y o he Cen al Punjab,
Laho e
Email: ahi [email p o ec ed]
152
This s udy in es iga es coaching beha io s and hei in luence on emale a hle es‘
sa is ac ion. Al hough coaching beha io s ha e been widely examined, limi ed
esea ch has compa ed he sel -assessed beha io s o male and emale coaches in
ela ion o emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion. To add ess his gap, he p esen s udy adop s a
non-expe imen al quan i a i e design o de e mine whe he sa is ac ion le els among
emale a hle es di e based on hei coach‘s gende and o iden i y which coaching
s yles a e mo e s ongly associa ed wi h a hle e sa is ac ion. The mean age o emale
a hle es coached by males was M = 19.97, while hose coached by emales had a
mean age o M = 19.23. Da a we e collec ed h ough an online su ey using wo
ins umen s: he Coaching Beha io Ques ionnai e o coaches‘ sel -assessmen and
he Coaching Beha io Feedback Ques ionnai e o a hle es‘ pe cep ions. E hical
app o al was ob ained om he ele an ins i u ion. Da a we e analyzed using
ANOVA and Independen - es s. The indings e ealed no signi ican di e ences
be ween male and emale coaches in sel -assessed beha io s, no in emale a hle es‘
sa is ac ion le els. Howe e , desc ip i e s a is ics indica ed sligh ly highe
sa is ac ion among a hle es coached by males. These esul s o e impo an
implica ions o enhancing coaching s a egies and imp o ing emale a hle es‘
expe iences in Pakis an. This esea ch con ibu es o he li e a u e by emphasizing he
ole o gende dynamics in coaching beha io s and hei impac on emale a hle e
sa is ac ion.
Keywo ds: Coach-A hle e Rela ionship, Female A hle e Sa is ac ion, Coaching
Beha io s, Gende Dynamics
In oduc ion
Spo s coaching p o ides an en i onmen ha enables a hle es o achie e p og ess and
success in hei spo ing ca ee s (Pu nomo e al., 2024). Coaching has been desc ibed
as bo h an a and a science, as i equi es balancing he pe sonal and p o essional
de elopmen o a hle es while deli e ing quali y aining sessions o p epa e hem o
compe i ion (Sho & Sho , 2005). Resea ch has u he emphasized ha coaching
app oaches in luence a hle e mo i a ion and beha io . Fo example, Hodge and
Lonsdale (2011) ound ha au onomy-suppo i e coaching inc eases a hle es‘ sel -
mo i a ed beha io s, whe eas con olling beha io s a e associa ed wi h dec eased
mo i a ion.
The ole o he coach ex ends beyond echnical ins uc ion o encompass leade ship,
communica ion, and ela ionship-building. Kwon e al. (2010) and Rupe and
Buschne (1989) highligh ed di e ences in how eache -coaches and spo coaches
p io i ize ins uc ion, showing he impo ance o con ex in shaping coaching
e ec i eness. Simila ly, Jowe (2003, 2017) a gued ha he coach-a hle e
ela ionship is cen al o coaching e ec i eness, de ining i as a dynamic and
ecip ocal p ocess shaped by mu ual us , espec , and collabo a ion. Fou aki e al.
(2020) con i med ha a hle es pe cei e coaches who p o ide ins uc ion, guidance,
social suppo , and cons uc i e eedback mo e posi i ely, leading o enhanced
pe o mance and s onge ela ionships. E ec i e communica ion has also been
shown o os e us , mo i a ion, and openness, allowing a hle es o engage mo e
p oduc i ely wi h aining and eedback (Pu nomo e al., 2024).
A hle e sa is ac ion, de ined as a ―posi i e emo ional si ua ion a ising om a complex
e alua ion o s uc u es, p ocesses, and ou comes o a hle ic expe ience‖ (Chelladu ai
& Rieme , 1997), has been widely s udied as an indica o o coaching e ec i eness.
ABSTRACT
153
Sa is ac ion is enhanced when coaches p o ide guidance, encou agemen , and suppo
(Chelladu ai, 1993). Impo an ly, sa is ac ion is no solely dependen on pe o mance
ou comes such as win-loss eco ds, bu also on a hle es‘ pe cep ions o hei
expe iences and ela ionships wi h hei coaches. C anme and Solli o (2015) u he
demons a ed ha social suppo om coaches whe he in o ma ional, emo ional, o
es eem- ela ed con ibu es signi ican ly o a hle es‘ sa is ac ion and well-being.
Female a hle es, like hei male coun e pa s, a e highly compe i i e bu may ha e
dis inc p e e ences in coaching app oaches. When coaches ecognize and adap o
hese di e ences, hey c ea e a posi i e en i onmen ha enhances bo h pe o mance
and sa is ac ion (S ewa , 2016). Theo e ical amewo ks such as Social Cogni i e
Theo y (Smi h & Smoll, 1997) and Sel -De e mina ion Theo y (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
ha e been applied o unde s and hese dynamics. Suppo i e and ins uc ional
coaching beha io s a e consis en ly linked o highe a hle e sel -es eem (Ho n, 1985;
Lemonidis e al., 2014), while nega i e beha io s a e associa ed wi h educed
mo i a ion and sa is ac ion (Allen & Howe, 1998). The mul idimensional leade ship
model (MacLean & Chelladu ai, 1995 and Chelladu ai, 2012) u he iden i ies i e
key dimensions o coaching, aining and ins uc ion, democ a ic beha io , au oc a ic
beha io , social suppo , and posi i e eedback—all o which in luence a hle e
ou comes.
Gende dynamics play a pa icula ly impo an ole in he coach-a hle e ela ionship.
Resea ch has shown ha emale a hle es o en epo highe sa is ac ion when
coached by emales, ci ing empa he ic communica ion, ole modeling, and suppo i e
beha io s (Bekia i & Sy mpas, 2015; S ewa , 2016). Con e sely, o he s udies
sugges ha emale a hle es may pe cei e male coaches as mo e au ho i a i e bu less
emo ionally suppo i e, which can a ec sa is ac ion nega i ely (Tomlinson &
Yo ganci, 1997; Jowe & Nezlek, 2012). These con as ing indings highligh he
need o u he in es iga ion, especially in unde - esea ched con ex s such as
Pakis an, whe e cul u al ac o s may in luence pe cep ions o coaching beha io .
The pu pose o his s udy is o examine emale s uden -a hle es‘ pe cep ions o hei
coach-a hle e ela ionships and hei sa is ac ion wi h coaching beha io s.
Speci ically, i seeks o de e mine whe he he e a e signi ican di e ences in
sa is ac ion based on coach gende , and o iden i y which coaching beha io s (e.g.,
di ec ing, in o ming, challenging, suppo ing) a e mos posi i ely ecei ed. By
add essing his gap, he s udy con ibu es o he body o knowledge on coaching
e ec i eness and a hle e sa is ac ion, wi h implica ions o imp o ing coaching
s a egies and suppo ing emale a hle es in Pakis an.
To guide his esea ch, he ollowing hypo heses we e p oposed:
H1: Female a hle es epo highe sa is ac ion le els wi h he coaching beha io s o
male coaches compa ed o emale coaches.
H0: The e a e no signi ican di e ences in he in luence o coaching beha io s
be ween male and emale coaches on emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion.
Ma e ials and Me hods
Pa icipan s
The s udy sample comp ised 128 pa icipan s, including 120 emale a hle es and 8
coaches (4 male and 4 emale). Each coach was esponsible o 15 emale a hle es,
who p o ided eedback on hei pe cep ions and sa is ac ion wi h hei espec i e
coach‘s beha io s. The mean ages o emale a hle es coached by males and emales
we e 19.97 and 19.23 yea s, espec i ely. All a hle es we e emale, aged 16–25 yea s,
wi h an a e age o 3–4 yea s o expe ience unde hei cu en coach. Pa icipan s
154
we e ec ui ed om uni e si ies, academies, and spo s ins i u ions ac oss he egion,
ep esen ing di e se educa ional and a hle ic backg ounds.
Ins umen s
Two ins umen s we e used in he s udy:
1. Coaching Beha io Ques ionnai e (CBQ):
O iginally de eloped by John He on (1975) and la e modi ied by E ik and
Vik o (2017) a Ash idge Business School, he CBQ was used o assess
coaches‘ sel -pe cep ions o hei beha io s. The ques ionnai e consis s o 60
i ems ac oss six dimensions: Di ec ing, In o ming, Challenging, Releasing,
Suppo ing, and Disco e ing. Coaches comple ed his sel -assessmen .
2. Coaching Beha io Feedback Ques ionnai e (CBFQ):
Adap ed om he Ash idge Coaching Beha io s Su ey (de eloped by
Richa d Phillips and la e modi ied by E ik), he CBFQ was adminis e ed o
a hle es o e alua e hei sa is ac ion wi h hei coach‘s beha io s. The
ins umen also includes 60 i ems dis ibu ed ac oss he same six dimensions
as he CBQ.
Bo h ques ionnai es we e s uc u ed on a 6-poin Like scale (0 = no a all, 5 = e y
o en), allowing esponden s o a e he equency o speci ic coaching beha io s.
Toge he , he CBQ and CBFQ p o ided a dual pe spec i e—cap u ing bo h coaches‘
sel -assessmen and a hle es‘ pe cep ions— he eby ensu ing a comp ehensi e analysis
o coaching beha io s and a hle e sa is ac ion.
P ocedu e
Da a collec ion was conduc ed using Google Fo ms in 2024. Coaches ecei ed
pe sonalized su ey links o bo h hei sel -assessmen (CBQ) and o dis ibu ion o
hei a hle es (CBFQ). Each coach was ins uc ed o o wa d he a hle e ques ionnai e
link o 20 o hei emale a hle es. Howe e , due o challenges in pa icipan
a ailabili y and coope a ion, only 15 a hle es pe coach comple ed he su ey,
esul ing in 120 comple ed a hle e esponses.
De ailed ins uc ions and consen in o ma ion we e included a he beginning o bo h
ques ionnai es. Coaches and a hle es we e in o med abou he s udy‘s pu pose,
con iden iali y measu es, and he impo ance o p o iding hones esponses. Each
ques ionnai e equi ed app oxima ely 10–15 minu es o comple e. Comple ed
esponses we e s o ed secu ely wi hin he Google Fo ms pla o m, ensu ing
con iden iali y and e icien da a managemen .
E hical Conside a ions
E hical app o al o he s udy was ob ained om he ins i u ional e iew boa d.
Pa icipan s we e in o med o he olun a y na u e o hei in ol emen and we e
assu ed ha hei esponses would emain con iden ial. Consen was ob ained
elec onically be o e su ey comple ion. The s udy adhe ed o e hical p inciples o
espec , con iden iali y, and minimiza ion o ha m.
S a is ical Analysis
Da a we e analyzed using SPSS so wa e. Desc ip i e s a is ics we e i s compu ed o
summa ize pa icipan demog aphics. One-way ANOVA was employed o examine
whe he signi ican di e ences exis ed in coaching beha io s be ween male and
emale coaches based on sel -assessmen (CBQ). S a is ical signi icance was
de e mined using a h eshold o p < 0.05.To assess a hle e sa is ac ion, independen
155
samples - es s we e conduc ed on CBFQ da a, compa ing sa is ac ion le els o
emale a hle es wi h male e sus emale coaches. The es s examined di e ences
ac oss each o he six beha io al dimensions.
Resul s:
One-Way ANOVA Analysis:
Table 4.1 p esen s he one-way ANOVA esul s examining he impac o coach gende
on six coaching beha io s: Di ec ing, In o ming, Challenging, Releasing,
Disco e ing, and Suppo ing. The analysis e eals no s a is ically signi ican
di e ences be ween male and emale coaches ac oss all six beha io al dimensions
examined.
Table 4.1: One-Way ANOVA Analysis o Coaching Beha io s by Coach Gende
Fac o s
Sum o
Squa es
(Be ween)
D
(Be ween)
Mean
Squa e
(Be ween)
Sum o
Squa es
(Wi hin)
D
(Wi hin)
Mean
Squa e
(Wi hin)
F
Sig.
Di ec ing
364.5
1
364.5
517.5
6
86.25
4.23
0.09
In o ming
300.125
1
300.13
704.75
6
117.46
2.56
0.16
Challenging
242
1
242
465.5
6
77.583
3.12
0.13
Releasing
136.125
1
136.13
926.75
6
154.46
0.88
0.38
Disco e ing
288
1
288
460
6
76.67
3.76
0.10
Suppo ing
392
1
392
840
6
140
2.8
0.15
No e: Sig. = signi icance alue (α = 0.05); F = a ia ion be ween g oups; d = deg ees
o eedom
Table 4.1 shows six coaching beha io s demons a ed p- alues g ea e han 0.05,
indica ing no s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween male and emale coaches.
Speci ically, Di ec ing beha io (p = 0.09), In o ming beha io (p = 0.16),
Challenging beha io (p = 0.13), Releasing beha io (p = 0.38), Disco e ing beha io
(p = 0.10), and Suppo ing beha io (p = 0.15) all ailed o each s a is ical
signi icance. Howe e , i is no ewo hy ha Di ec ing (p = 0.09) and Disco e ing (p =
0.10) beha io s app oached he signi icance h eshold, wa an ing u he
in es iga ion in u u e s udies.
Desc ip i e s a is ic
Table 4.2 p esen s desc ip i e s a is ics o all six coaching beha io s, e ealing
ema kably simila dis ibu ion pa e ns ac oss beha io al dimensions.
Table 4.2: All beha io s' dis ibu ion sco es a e qui e simila o each o he .
Fac o
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
S d. De ia ion
Di ec ing
120
12.00
50.00
39.09
±7.77
In o ming
120
12.00
50.00
39.60
±7.80
156
Challenging
120
11.00
50.00
36.42
±7.75
Releasing
120
12.00
56.00
35.83
±9.56
Disco e ing
120
12.00
50.00
37.99
±7.79
Suppo ing
120
12.00
50.00
39.94
±7.42
Table 4.2 shows he desc ip i e s a is ics, p o iding an o e iew o he dis ibu ion
and cen al endency o sco es o each coaching beha io among he sample o 120
emale a hle es. The mean sco es ac oss all six beha io s a e no ably simila , anging
om 35.83 o 39.94, sugges ing ela i ely consis en coaching beha io pa e ns
ega dless o speci ic beha io al dimensions. This simila i y in means ein o ces he
inding ha no s a is ically signi ican di e ences exis be ween male and emale
coaches' beha io s.
Rega ding a iabili y, Releasing beha io exhibi ed he highes s anda d de ia ion
(SD = 9.56), indica ing g ea e inconsis ency in how his beha io mani es s ac oss
di e en coaching con ex s. Con e sely, Suppo ing beha io demons a ed he lowes
s anda d de ia ion (SD = 7.42), sugges ing mo e uni o m applica ion o suppo i e
coaching p ac ices ac oss bo h male and emale coaches.
G oup S a is ics:
Table 4.3 p esen s g oup s a is ics compa ing male and emale coaches ac oss all six
beha io al dimensions, based on a ings om emale a hle es.
Fac o
Coach Gende
N
Mean
S d. De ia ion
S d. E o Mean
Di ec ing
Male
60
39.85
±6.05
0.78
Female
60
38.33
±9.16
1.18
In o ming
Male
60
40.98
±6.09
0.79
Female
60
38.20
±9.04
1.17
Challenging
Male
60
36.57
±6.69
0.86
Female
60
36.28
±8.74
1.13
Releasing
Male
60
36.33
±8.30
1.07
Female
60
35.33
±10.72
1.38
Disco e ing
Male
60
38.20
±6.79
0.88
Female
60
37.78
±8.73
1.13
Suppo ing
Male
60
40.47
±5.94
0.77
Female
60
39.42
±8.67
1.12
157
Table 4.3 shows he g oup s a is ics e eal sub le pa e ns in how emale a hle es
pe cei ed male e sus emale coaches' beha io s. Fo di ec ing beha io , male
coaches ecei ed sligh ly highe mean sco es (M = 39.85, SD = 6.05) compa ed o
emale coaches (M = 38.33, SD = 9.16). The lowe s anda d de ia ion among male
coaches sugges s g ea e consis ency in di ec ing beha io s and ma ginally highe
sa is ac ion among emale a hle es.
Simila ly, o in o ming beha io , male coaches demons a ed highe mean sco es (M
= 40.98, SD = 6.09) compa ed o emale coaches (M = 38.20, SD = 9.04), wi h lowe
a iabili y indica ing mo e consis en in o ming p ac ices. Fo Challenging beha io ,
bo h male and emale coaches achie ed nea ly iden ical mean sco es (M = 36.57 s.
M = 36.28), hough male coaches again showed lowe s anda d de ia ion (SD = 6.69
s. SD = 8.74), sugges ing mo e p edic able challenging beha io s.
This pa e n con inued ac oss Releasing beha io , whe e male coaches eco ded
sligh ly highe means (M = 36.33 s. M = 35.33) wi h lowe s anda d de ia ion (SD =
8.30 s. SD = 10.72). The highe a iabili y in emale coaches' sco es indica es ha
he a e age may be less eliable due o g ea e inconsis ency. Fo Disco e ing
beha io , male coaches again showed ma ginally highe and mo e consis en sco es
(M = 38.20, SD = 6.79) compa ed o emale coaches (M = 37.78, SD = 8.73). Finally,
o Suppo ing beha io , male coaches achie ed highe mean sco es (M = 40.47, SD =
5.94) han emale coaches (M = 39.42, SD = 8.67), wi h lowe s anda d de ia ion
sugges ing g ea e consis ency and sligh ly highe sa is ac ion in suppo ing
beha io s.
Independen - es samples:
Table 4.4 p esen s he esul s o independen samples - es s examining whe he he
obse ed
Di e ences in g oup s a is ics each s a is ical signi icance.
Table 4.4: Independen Samples T-Tes Resul s
No e: * indica es signi ican Le ene's es (p < 0.05), sugges ing unequal a iances;
d = deg ees o
F eedom
Table 4.4 shows independen samples - es analysis e ealed ha despi e he
desc ip i e di e ences obse ed in g oup s a is ics, none o he coaching beha io s
Fac o
Le ene‘s Tes o
Equali y o
Va iances
T-Tes o Equali y
o Means
95% Con idence
In e al o he
Di e ence
F
Sig.
Di ec ing
91.15
0.003
1.070
In o ming
4.72
0.032
1.979
Challenging
2.34
0.129
-0.199
Releasing
3.25
0.074
-0.571
Disco e ing
1.56
0.214
-0.292
Suppo ing
5.28
0.023
1.050
158
demons a ed s a is ically signi ican di e ences in sa is ac ion le els be ween male
and emale coaches. All p- alues exceeded he con en ional h eshold o 0.05.
Speci ically, o Di ec ing beha io , Le ene's es indica ed signi ican ly di e en
a iances (F = 9.15, p = 0.003), ye he - es showed no signi ican di e ence in
means ( = 1.070, d = 118, p = 0.287).
Challenging beha io ( = -0.199, d = 118, p = 0.842), Releasing beha io ( = -0.571,
d = 118, p = 0.569), Disco e ing beha io ( = -0.292, d = 118, p = 0.771), and
Suppo ing beha io ( = 1.050, d = 118, p = 0.441) all demons a ed non-signi ican
esul s.
No ably, In o ming beha io app oached s a is ical signi icance ( = 1.979, d = 118, p
= 0.050), ep esen ing a bo de line esul ha me i s a en ion in u u e esea ch.
Howe e , a he con en ional alpha le el o 0.05, his esul emains non-signi ican .
Discussion
The pu pose o his s udy was o examine he impac o coaches‘ beha io s on emale
a hle es‘ sa is ac ion, wi h a ocus on iden i ying signi ican di e ences be ween male
and emale coaches‘ beha io s and he co esponding sa is ac ion le els o hei
a hle es. In addi ion, he s udy explo ed coaches‘ sel -assessmen s o de e mine
whe he di e ences exis ed be ween male and emale coaches‘ epo ed beha io s.
The discussion is o ganized a ound he s udy‘s hypo heses.
H1: Female a hle es epo highe sa is ac ion le els wi h he coaching beha io s o
male coaches compa ed o emale coaches.
This hypo hesis sough o de e mine whe he emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion could be
p edic ed by he beha io s exhibi ed by male and emale coaches. Acco ding o
Chelladu ai and Saleh (1980), coaching e ec i eness and a hle e sa is ac ion bo h
s ongly in luenced by leade ship s yle and si ua ional ci cums ances. The indings
e ealed ha o e all sa is ac ion le els we e simila ega dless o he coach‘s gende .
Howe e , desc ip i e s a is ics indica ed sligh ly highe sa is ac ion wi h male
coaches, e idenced by highe mean sco es and lowe s anda d de ia ions ac oss mos
coaching beha io s
These esul s sugges ha male coaches demons a e sligh ly mo e consis en
coaching beha io s han emale coaches as Ho n‘s (2008) in his s udy a gues ha
a hle es sa is ac ion mos ly depends on pe cei ed compe ence and communica ion
a he han coach gende . Mo eo e , Cô é & Gilbe (2009) sugges a ious p oposed
de ini ions, bu one o hem is abou he coach‘s consis ency, which can lead o
imp o ed a hle e pe o mance, compe ence, con idence, connec ion, and cha ac e in
esponse o hei a hle es‘ needs o sa is ac ion. Howe e , his consis ency does no
ansla e in o s a is ically signi ican di e ences in emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion.
Ins ead, he indings indica e ha emale a hle es a e gene ally sa is ied wi h bo h
male and emale coaches, wi h only mino a ia ions.
G oup s a is ics u he suppo ed his in e p e a ion, showing sligh di e ences in
consis ency bu no majo di e ences in coaching e ec i eness. Thus, he hypo hesis
was only pa ially suppo ed, as desc ip i e esul s a o ed male coaches, bu
in e en ial analyses con i med no signi ican di e ence.
H0: The e is no signi ican di e ence in he in luence o coaching beha io s be ween
male and emale coaches on he sa is ac ion o emale a hle es.
O e all, he indings suppo he null hypo hesis, con i ming ha he e a e no
s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween male and emale coaches‘ beha io s o
hei in luence on emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion (Ho n, 2002; F ey, Czech, Ken , &
Johnson, 2006; Ka ussanu, Boa dley, Ju kiewicz, Vincen , & Ring, 2008). The nea -
159
signi icance o In o ming and Disco e ing beha io s indica es po en ial a eas o
u u e explo a ion, as hese ca ego ies may cap u e sub le gende ed di e ences in
coaching s yle. Acco ding o Lyle and Cushion (2017) and Jowe and Cocke ill
(2003), hei s udies align by s a ing ha beha io al s yles may a y sligh ly because
bo h male and emale coaches can be equally e ec i e when hey p omo e us , open
communica ion, and espec . These esul s s eng hen he concep s ha e ec i e
coaching su passes gende and elies mo e hea ily on in e pe sonal, mo i a ional, and
ins uc ional quali ies (Ho n, 2008; Jowe , 2017; I akha e al, 2022).
In e p e a ion and Implica ions
he absence o signi ican di e ences sugges s ha bo h male and emale coaches
exhibi b oadly compa able beha io s and achie e simila le els o a hle e
sa is ac ion. This may e lec s anda dized coaching p og ams and sha ed cul u al
expec a ions, which minimize gende -based di e ences. Addi ionally, emale a hle es
may p io i ize speci ic beha io s, such as suppo and guidance, o e he gende o
he coach.
The indings highligh he impo ance o ocusing on e ec i e coaching beha io s
alued by a hle es, a he han on gende -based assump ions. Ins i u ions should
es ablish mechanisms o a hle e eedback o encou age con inuous imp o emen in
coaching p ac ices and o s eng hen he coach a hle e ela ionship.
Limi a ions and Fu u e Di ec ions
This s udy aced se e al limi a ions. The sample size was ela i ely small, limi ing he
gene alizabili y o he indings. The geog aphical scope also cons ains he
applicabili y o esul s o b oade popula ions. Fu he mo e, sel -assessmen s by
coaches may be in luenced by bias, while ime cons ain s du ing da a collec ion
could ha e a ec ed esponse quali y.
Despi e hese limi a ions, he s udy p o ides impo an insigh s. The esul s imply ha
coaching e ec i eness is no inhe en ly ied o gende bu a he o speci ic beha io s.
Howe e , gi en ha Di ec ing and Disco e ing beha io s app oached signi icance,
u u e esea ch should examine hese a eas in g ea e dep h. Di ec ing beha io s align
wi h au ho i a i e s yles, while Disco e ing beha io s e lec mo e acili a i e
app oaches. In es iga ing how hese s yles in luence emale a hle es‘ sa is ac ion and
pe o mance could en ich he unde s anding o gende dynamics in coaching.
Conclusion
This s udy concludes ha he e a e no s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween
male and emale coaches in sel -assessed beha io s o in he sa is ac ion le els o
emale a hle es. These indings suppo he null hypo hesis and emphasize he need o
mo e beyond gende s e eo ypes in coaching. Fu u e s udies should expand he
sample size, b oaden he geog aphic scope, and inco po a e a hle e pe o mance
ou comes alongside sa is ac ion o p o ide a mo e comp ehensi e pe spec i e on how
coaching beha io s shape he a hle e expe ience.
Re e ences:
Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. L. (1998). Playe abili y, coach eedback, and emale
adolescen a hle es' pe cei ed compe ence and sa is ac ion. Jou nal o Spo &
Exe cise Psychology, 20, 280–299.
Amo ose, A. J., & Ande son-Bu che , D. (2015). Explo ing he independen and
in e ac i e e ec s o au onomy-suppo i e and con olling coaching beha io s
on adolescen a hle es‘ mo i a ion o spo . Spo , Exe cise, and Pe o mance
