Diferencias entre el modelo técnico-tradicional y el modelo comprensivo en la motivación y compromiso de jóvenes deportistas: un estudio transversal (Differences between the technical-traditional model and the Teaching Games for Understanding model on mo

La implementación por parte del entrenador de modelos pedagógicos centrados en la comprensión se ha asociado a una mejora del proceso motivacional de los deportistas. Sin embargo, existe un limitado número de estudios que hayan comparado diferentes modelos pedagógicos en variables motivacionales en deportistas en formación. Bajo el sustento de la teoría de la autodeterminación, el objetivo del estudio fue examinar, al final de la temporada deportiva, las diferencias percibidas por jugadores en formación de dos equipos diferentes acerca de las conductas de apoyo y de amenaza de las necesidades psicológicas básicas (NPB; autonomía, competencia y relaciones sociales) por parte del entrenador, la satisfacción y frustración de las NPB, la motivación, el compromiso deportivo y la diversión. Durante la temporada, un entrenador diseñó sus entrenamientos con un modelo técnico-tradicional, mientras que el otro basó su intervención en un modelo comprensivo, también conocido como teaching games for understanding (TGfU). Un total de 23 jugadores (M=16.42±0.50; 100% chicos) de fútbol sala en formación pertenecientes a dos equipos de categoría juvenil participaron en este estudio transversal. Los jugadores del equipo que entrenaban a través de un modelo comprensivo percibieron valores significativamente superiores en el apoyo de la autonomía por parte del entrenador, en la satisfacción de las NPB y en la motivación autodeterminada, e inferiores en la frustración de las NPB, en comparación con aquellos que entrenaban con un modelo técnico-tradicional. Teniendo en cuenta estos hallazgos, parece importante promover la formación específica de los entrenadores en el modelo de enseñanza comprensiva para favorecer los procesos motivacionales de los jóvenes jugadores. Abstract. The implementation by the coach of pedagogical models focused on the understanding has been associated with an improvement in the motivational process of athletes. However, there is a limited number of studies that have compared different pedagogical models on motivational outcomes in young athletes. Therefore, guided by self-determination theory, this study aimed to examine, at the end of the season, the differences perceived by youth players from two different teams about need-supportive and need-thwarting, need-satisfaction and need-frustration, motivation, sport commitment, and enjoyment. During the season, one coach designed his trainings with a technical-traditional model, while the other coach based his trainings on a comprehensive model, also known as teaching games for understanding (TGfU). A total of 23 youth futsal players (M= 16.42±0.50; 100% boys), belonging to two different U-18 teams, participated in this cross-sectional study. Players who received a TGfU model during the season perceived significantly higher values in coach autonomy support, need satisfaction, and self-determined motivation, and lower values in need frustration, compared to those who received a technical-traditional model. Considering these findings, it seems important to develop coach TGfU training to enhance the motivation of young players.

The Influence of the Coach’s Autonomy Support and Controlling Behaviours on Motivation and Sport Commitment of Youth Soccer Players

The coach is one of the most influential agents in the sport commitment of youth players. Grounded in self-determination theory (SDT), numerous studies have examined the influence of the coach’s autonomy-supportive behaviours on athletes’ motivation. However, fewer studies have examined the influence of the coach’s controlling behaviours. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to analyse the influence of young soccer players’ perception of their coach’s autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviours on the satisfaction and frustration of their basic psychological needs (BPN) and sport commitment. A total of 203 soccer players (86% boys), aged 10–19 years (M = 14.88; SD = 1.54) participated. Coach autonomy support positively predicted BPN satisfaction which, in turn, positively explained sport commitment. Coach intimidation behaviours positively predicted BPN frustration, which, in turn, negatively explained sport commitment. In cross-relationships, autonomy support negatively explained BPN frustration, while intimidation behaviours and the controlling use of rewards negatively predicted BPN satisfaction. To conclude, these results suggest that it is important for the coach not only to support autonomy, but also to avoid the use of controlling behaviours, especially intimidation and controlling use of rewards, because of their influence on the motivational processes and sport commitment of youth soccer players.

How coaches’ need-supportive and controlling behaviors are related to different (mal)adaptive outcomes in water polo players: a person-centered approach

The relationship between both coaches’ need-supportive and controlling behaviors and different athletes’ motivational outcomes has been previously examined. However, little is known about the coexistence of coaches’ need-supportive and controlling behaviors in the sports context and even less, about what coach’s motivating style configuration may yield the most and the least adaptive pattern of outcomes in relation to athletes’ motivating experiences. Grounded in self-determination theory (SDT), this study aimed to identify coach motivating style groups based on athletes’ perceptions of need-supportive and four controlling behaviors (i.e., controlling use of rewards, negative conditional regard, intimidation, and personal control), and to examine their differences in terms of athletes’ motivational outcomes and sport commitment. Using a sample of 658 young water polo players (Mage = 14.76, SD = 1.36), results revealed five distinct coach motivating style groups. A coexistence of need-supportive and controlling use of rewards was identified among athletes in two groups. The “very low support-high control” group yielded the most maladaptive outcomes, while the “high support-low control” group was the most optimal style, even when compared to coaches that combined high need-supportive and controlling practices. This study provides deeper insights on how athletes may perceive simultaneously coach’s need-supportive and controlling behaviors, and how some controlling practices imply a higher motivational cost among athletes.

Athletic identity and sport commitment in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction who have returned to sports at their pre-injury level of competition

Background This study aimed to determine the relationships between athletic identity and sport commitment and return to sports (RTS) status in athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods Thirty-nine participants post-ACLR (8–24 months) were included in this cross-sectional study. Measures included the athletic identity measurement scale and sport commitment scale. In addition, we measured kinesiophobia and psychological readiness using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and ACL-Return to sport after injury scale. The subjects were categorized into Yes-RTS or No-RTS based on two questions to determine whether they were returning to sport at the same level of competition as before the injury. A Chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, and Mann-Whitney’s U test were used to analyze the data. Results The Yes-RTS group had significantly higher scores on the athletic identity measurement scale (P = 0.023, effect size [ES] = − 0.36), sport commitment scale (P = 0.027, ES = − 0.35), and ACL-Return to sport after injury scale (P = 0.002, ES = − 0.50) and significantly lower Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia scores (P = 0.014, ES = − 0.39) compared to the No-RTS group. Conclusion Athletes who returned to sports at the same level of competition as before the injury had higher athletic identity and sport commitment and lower kinesiophobia compared to those who did not return to sports at the same level of competition. These self-beliefs regarding sport may play an important role in post-ACLR athletes’ RTS.