Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), Vol. 24 (issue 8), Art 212, pp. 1909 - 1919, August 2024
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051 © JPES

Original Article
Demographic characteristics, personality traits, leadership qualities and work
performance as predictors of the selection criteria for coaches
CHRISTINA ANTHI1, GEORGE KIPREOS2, KRINANTHI GDONTELI3, VASILIOS KAKKOS4,NEKTARIOS STAVROU5
1,2,3
Department of Sports Organization & Management, Faculty of Human Movement Sciences and Quality ofLife University of Peloponnese, 23100, Sparta, GREECE
4General Secretariat of Sports, Ministry of Education Religious Affairs and Sports, Athens, GREECE
5
Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, School of Physical Education & Sport Science, National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens, GREECE
Published online: August 31, 2024
Accepted for publication : August 15, 2024
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2024.08212
Abstract:
In this study we investigated how demographic factors, personality traits, leadership qualities, and general work
performance predicted the evaluation and selection criteria for coaches. Specifically, we identified key predictorsthat influenced various selection criteria and highlighted those with a significant impact on specific selection
criteria, including (a) coaching results for athletes, (b) the coach’s personal achievements, (c) the design andimplementation of coaching programs, (d) competition management, (e) psychological support for athletes, and(f) commitment to the club. The study sample consisted of 585 coaches employed by 237 amateur sports clubs in
Attica, Greece. Data were collected using measures of demographics, personality, leadership, general work
performance, and coach selection criteria. A three-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed
to identify the significant predictors of coach selection criteria in the context of amateur sports. The results
indicate that specific demographic factors (such as primary professional occupation, age, professional
experience, and previous athletic experience), personality traits (conscientiousness and openness to experience),
leadership qualities (intellectual stimulation and administrative skills), and general work performance
significantly influence and predict the selection criteria used by amateur sports clubs. Amateur sports clubs
involved in this study prioritized coaches who had coaching as their primary profession, had extensive coaching
and athletic experience, exhibited high levels of conscientiousness and openness to experience, and demonstrated
strong intellectual stimulation and general work performance. The study shows that the selection of coaches inamateur sports settings involves a careful consideration of the knowledge, skills, competencies, and individual
characteristics essential for effective coaching. It also provides valuable insights for sports clubs regarding coachselection criteria and offers important guidance for coaches working in this environment.
Key Words: amateur sports clubs, professional coaching, evaluation and selection process, job analysis,
hierarchical multiple regression analysis
Introduction:
With the rapid expansion of sports in modern society, the coaching workforce has grown considerably
over the past few decades, encompassing a wide range of coaching roles (Dixon & Bruening, 2007; Graham &Dixon, 2017; North, 2009). Coaches are recognized as key contributors in the sports industry, particularly inyouth sports settings, where they play multiple vital roles (Cushion & Partington, 2014) and are integral to thesuccess and growth of sports clubs. As a result, there is a strong emphasis on high-quality and effective
coaching, which is essential for providing an optimal sporting experience and fostering the development of
athletes and sports participants (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Kavussanu et al., 2008; Mills & Boardley, 2017).
Therefore, modern coaches must demonstrate competence and professionalism through their knowledge andtraining (Taylor & Garratt, 2013). In this context, selecting a coach is a complex decision that requires
specialized personnel to design and execute the process. Coach selection involves choosing the individual who
best meets the job requirements, based on position-specific criteria that reflect the tasks to be performed in aparticular coaching role. These criteria are directly linked to the coaching context and domain, which define thecoach's tasks, roles, and responsibilities (Horton, 2015; Lyle, 2020). Defining the appropriate selection criteria
for a coaching position begins with a thorough job analysis. This analysis includes a job description, which
outlines the scope of tasks associated with the role, and a job specification, which identifies the knowledge,
skills, competencies, and behavioral attributes necessary to successfully perform these tasks. Additionally, itdetails the qualifications, training, and experience required for effective job performance (Armstrong & Taylor,2023).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1909
Corresponding Author: CHRISTINA ANTHI, E-mail: c.anthi@uop.gr

CHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------While each coaching position is unique, certain core coaching functions are common across roles.
These include developing a vision and strategy for the coaching process, establishing a suitable coachingenvironment, fostering healthy and positive relationships with athletes and participants, conducting practices,
preparing for and managing competitions, addressing emerging issues in the field, and promoting learning andimprovement (Lara-Bercial et al., 2017). To effectively carry out these functions, a coach must possess bothgeneral and specific knowledge (Neelis et al., 2020; Stodter & Cushion, 2019). Beyond coaching knowledge,
essential qualities, skills, and personal characteristics are also crucial for fulfilling key aspects of coaching.
Researchers have identified several variables that differentiate the successful delivery of coaching tasks,
including coaching experience (Chan & Mallet, 2011; Kramers et al., 2020; Lyle & Cushion, 2017; Neelis,
Faucett, & Thompson, 2020; Schempp & McCullick, 2010), previous athlete experience (Trudel & Gilbert,
2006), sport level (Trudel & Gilbert, 2006), educational background (Hedlund et al., 2018; Choi et al., 2005;
Zakrajsek et al., 2011), and gender (Schaeperkoetter et al., 2017; Cassidy et al., 2009). Additionally, effective
coaching requires strong communication and interaction skills, leadership abilities (Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Horn,2008; Jowett, 2017; Jowett & Arthur, 2019; Martens, 2012; MacLean & Chelladurai, 1995; Rhind & Jowett,
2010; Sullivan, Rhind & Jowett, 2014), pedagogical, organizational, and administrative skills (Cassidy et al.,2023; Perkins & Hahn, 2019), along with critical thinking, reflection, autonomy, adaptability, decision-making,and needs analysis skills (Lara-Bercial et al., 2013). Consequently, personality traits and leadership skills arehighly valued in this field (Predoiu et al., 2021). Research indicates that in selection processes where job analysis
is used, personality traits are not only related to but can also predict both the task and contextual performance of
employees (Jenkins & Griffith, 2004). Work performance consists of task performance, which pertains to jobspecific duties, and contextual performance, which refers to an employee's contribution to the organizational
culture and climate (Çalışkan & Köroğlu, 2022; Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999). Contextual performance isparticularly crucial in human resource practices such as recruitment, selection, and performance evaluation.
Murphy and Shiarella (1997) argued that the effectiveness of selection procedures depends on the relative
importance assigned to both task and contextual performance.
Amateur sports clubs are usually small volunteer organizations lacking formal organizational structuresand specialized personnel in human resource management. The selection of a coach is an important decision thatinvolves a process of identifying appropriate selection criteria to be used in order to select the individual thatbest meets job requirements. It is important to understand and identify the criteria used for selecting coaches in acontext where typical recruitment procedures are not usually in place. The primary aim of this study was toinvestigate whether coaches' demographic characteristics, personality traits, leadership qualities, and overall
work performance could predict the variables representing their selection criteria in the region of Attica, Greece.
Based on the literature, three hypotheses were formulated and tested: (a) coaches' demographic characteristics
are statistically significantly related to their selection criteria, (b) coaches' personality traits are statisticallysignificantly related to their selection criteria, and (c) coaches' leadership qualities and general work performanceare statistically significantly related to their selection criteria. This study contributes to the existing literature on
sports coaching by offering new insights into how amateur sports clubs select coaches. It establishes a robust
foundation for understanding coach selection criteria and provides evidence on the factors that predict thesecriteria.
Material and Methods
Participants
The study population comprised five hundred eighty-five (N=585) coaches selected by three hundred
fifty-three (353) administrators of two hundred thirty-seven (237) local amateur sports clubs. Participants wereselected using a simple random sampling method among the coaches working in amateur sports clubs in the
Region of Attica, Greece. Demographics showed that 393 coaches were male (67,2%) while 192 were female(32.8%). The age of the coaches ranged from 18 to 69 years (M=40.2, SD= 10.28) and their working experience
as coaches ranged from 0 to 50 years (M=14.2, SD=8.71). Most coaches (432, 73.8%) had a university degree.
514 (87.9%) coaches had a professional license in coaching and 542 (92.6%) had previous experience as athletes
before becoming coaches. Sport coaching was the primary profession of 267 (45.6%) coaches while 318 (54.4%)
reported other profession as their primary. The majority of the coaches in the sample (508, 86.8%) were coaches
working from 1 to 35 years in the same sports club while only 77 (13.2%) were new recruits. In addition,
demographic data showed that 491 (83.9%) coaches were part-time employees while 94 of those were working
full-time in the club. Coaches under this study covered thirty-one sports with 333 coaches (56.9%) in individual
sports and 69 (20,1%) in team sports. Administrators’ participation in this study was voluntary while
confidentiality and anonymity was adhered.
Procedure/Instruments
The main data collection instrument used was a questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised fivesections: (a) Information about the Club (year of foundation, sports, number of coaches) and demographic
characteristics of administrators completing the questionnaire (gender, age, educational level, position held,
years of experience in selecting coaches), (b) Demographic characteristics of the coaches (gender, age,
1910---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------educational level, professional license level, years of experience, years in the club, sports coached, age of theathletes, the competition level of the athletes, coaching as main profession, employment status), (c) Personality
assessment using the Personality Description Scale (19 items) (Kaprinis, 2015; Kaprinis et al., 2014; Kipreos etal., 2016), (d) Leadership qualities’ assessment using the Leadership Scale (10 items) (Kaprinis, 2015; Kipreos etal., 2016), (e) General work performance assessment using General Work Performance Scale (10 items)(Kaprinis, 2015; Kipreos et al., 2016), (f) Selection criteria of the coaches identification using the Evaluation and
Selection Criteria Scale for coaches (29 items) (Anthi et al., 2024). The personality assessment scale comprised
five factors: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. The
assessment of the transformational leadership characteristics included intellectual stimulation and administrativeskills. The general work performance assessment scale comprised one factor. The Evaluation and Selection
Criteria Scale for coaches comprising the following six factors: (1) the impact of coaching on athletes as“coaching results for athletes”, (2) the personal achievements and the recognition of their coaching work as “thecoach’s personal achievements”, (3) the “design and implementation of coaching”, (4) the management of thecompetition aspects as “competition management”, (5) the “psychological support for athletes”, and (6) the
support of the club as “the commitment to the club”. The structural validity and reliability of the questionnaires
have been adequately proven.
Data Collection and Analysis/Statistical Analysis
Data was collected between October 2020 and June 2021. The dependent and independent variables(predictors) set for this study are presented in Table 1. To estimate the relationship among variables and to
determine the predictors of the selection criteria of coaches the statistical technique of the hierarchical multiple
regression analysis was used (Cohen et al., 2003). Using this method the inclusion order of independent variablesin the model is determined by the researcher, in contrast to other methods in which predictor variables are
selected upon statistical criteria (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). To confirm the use of Hierarchical Multiple
Regression for the study and to ensure the validity of the data the adequacy of the sample size was examined.
The sample size of 585 was deemed adequate given the number of independent variables (15) subjected to thetest. The ratio for this analysis was 585 valid cases to 15 (39 to 1) independent variables meaning that theminimum requirement of 15 to 1 was satisfied (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). No missing data was found. To
address multicollinearity, the variance inflation factors (VIF) were examined. VIF measures the correlation andthe strength of the correlation between the independent variables in a regression model. VIF values start at 1 andhave no upper limit. VIF values close to 1 indicate that there is no correlation between a given independent
variable with the others while a VIF value greater than 5 indicates a potentially severe correlation. In this study,
none of the VIF values for the predictor variables were greater than 5 (VIF value ranged from 1.0 to 3.9), whichindicated no multicollinearity (Coakes, 2005; Hair et al., 2010).
Correlations between independent variables were checked through the Pearson r correlation coefficient toconfirm the lack of collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The correlation coefficient takes values in theclosed interval [-1, 1]. The F value in each model as well as the level of significance were evaluated. A
statistically significant level of the F value means that the model explains a significant amount of the dependent
variable. Each model was first evaluated by the coefficient of determination R Squared (R2) which normallyranges from 0 to 1 and measures how well the model predicts the dependent variable. R2 can be interpreted as
the percent of variance in the dependent variable explained by the set of predictor variables. The larger the valueof the coefficient of determination, the better the fit of the regression model to the survey data. Adjusted R2
represents the adjustment of R2 according to the number of independent variables (predictors) entered in themodel. Beta coefficients quantify the impact of independent variables on the dependent variable, assess the
direction of the relationship, and evaluate the statistical significance. The standardized beta coefficient (β) ranges
from 0 to 1 or 0 to -1 and represents the strength of the relationship between each predictor variable and thedependent variable as well as the direction of their relationship (positive or negative). The closer the value is to 1
or -1, the stronger the relationship.
Table 1. The dependent and independent variables (predictors) of this study
Independent Variables
Demographic characteristics
GenderAge
Educational level
Sport career (years)
Professional experience (years)
Years in the club
Coaching as primary profession

Dependent Variables
Selection criteria of coaches
Coaching results for athletes
The coach’s personal achievements
The design and implementation ofcoaching programs
Competition management
Psychological support for athletes
Commitment to the club

Personality characteristics
Extraversion
AgreeablenessConscientiousness
Emotional stability----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1911
JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Openness to experience
Leadership characteristics
Intellectual stimulation
Administrative skills
Work performance
Work performance

Independent variables (predictors) were introduced in the model in the following order:
Step 1: Demographic characteristics of the coach,
Step 2: Personality characteristics of the coach,
Step 3: Leadership characteristics of the coach and General Work Performance.
Results
A three-stage Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis (method Enter) was conducted to examine therelationship between the set of independent variables: demographic characteristics (age, gender, educational
level, sports career, coaching experience, professional experience in the club, and coaching as primary
profession), personality characteristics (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,
openness to experience), leadership characteristics (intellectual motivation, administrative skills) and work
performance against the dependent variables (Table 1).
Predictors of the “Coaching results for athletes” selection criterion
In the first step, demographic factors were entered into the model as independent variables (predictors).
The model significantly predicted (R2= .106, Adj. R2= .096, F (7, 584) =9.824, p<.001) demographic factors(age, b = .130, years of sports career, b = .106, work experience as a coach, b = .130 and main occupation as acoach, b = .128) as important predictors of the “Coaching results for athletes” as a selection criterion for coaches
in amateur sports. In the second step, personality traits were added to the model. The model continued tosignificantly predict (R2 =.543, Adj. R2=.280, F (12,584) =19.965, p<.001) the “Coaching results for athletes”
factor as a selection criterion for coaches in amateur sports settings. In particular, the demographic
characteristics of age (β= .144, p<0.05) and the main occupation as a coach (β= .088, p<0.05) remained robust
predictors while personality characteristics such as openness to experience (β= .392, p<0.001) and consciousness(β= .175, p<.05) emerged as important predictors as well. The third and final step involved the addition ofleadership characteristics and work performance. The overall model continued to significantly predict the“Coaching results for athletes” selection criterion for coaches (R2= .350, Adj. R2= .332, F (15, 584) =20.382,
p<.001). The demographic factor of the age of the coach (β= .128, p<.05) and the personality trait of the
openness to experience (β= .219, p<.05) remained significant predictors while the leadership characteristic ofintellectual stimulation (β= .175, p<.05) and work performance showed a significant positive association withthe “Coaching results for athletes” selection criterion of the coaches. Table 2 summarizes the indexes of
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable “Coaching results for athletes”.
Table 2. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression - Dependent Variable: Coaching results forathletes
Sig.
F
Model R
R2
Adj. R2R2 Change
F Change df1
df2
Change
1
.326a
.106
.096
.106
9.824
7
577
.000
2
.543b
.295
.280
.189
30.632
5
572
.000
3
.591c
.350
.332
.054
15.8353569.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experiencec. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
Predictors of the “Coach’s personal achievements” selection criterion
In the first step, demographic factors were entered into the model as independent variables (predictors).
The model significantly predicted (R2= .047, Adj. R2= .035, F (7, 584) =4.028, p<.001) demographic
characteristics (gender, b = .089, years of sports career, b = .095, and primary profession as a coach, b = .164) as
important predictors of the “Coach’s personal achievements” selection criterion for coaches in amateur sports. In
the second step, personality characteristics were added to the model. The model continued to significantly
predict (R2 =.970, Adj. R2=.970, F (12,584) =1559.925, p<.001) the “Coach’s personal achievements” as aselection criterion for coaches in amateur sports settings. In particular, gender (β= -0.30, p<0.05) remained arobust predictor while personality traits such as extraversion (β= .181, p<0.001), agreeableness (β= .803,
1912---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------p<0.001), consciousness (β= .034, p<0.01) and emotional stability (β= .050, p<0.001) emerged as important
predictors. The third and final step involved the addition of leadership characteristics and work performance. The
overall model continued significantly to predict the “Coach’s personal achievements” selection criterion forcoaches (R2= .971, Adj. R2= .970, F (15, 584) =1279.894, p<.001). The demographic characteristic of the genderof the coach (β= -0.29, p<.001) and the personality traits of extraversion (β= .171, p<0.001), agreeableness (β=.804, p<0.001), and emotional stability (β= .050, p<0.001) remained significant predictors while the leadershipcharacteristic of intellectual stimulation (β= .032, p<.01) and work performance (β= .032, p<.05) showed asignificant positive association with the selection criterion of the “Coach’s personal achievements”. Table 3
summarizes the indexes of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable “Coach’s personal
achievements”.
Table 3. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression - Dependent Variable: Coach’s personal
achievements.
Sig.
F
Model R
R2
Adj. R2R2 Change
F Change
df1
df2
Change
1
.216a
.047
.035
.047
4.028
7
577
.000
2
.985b
.970
.970
.924
3564.063
5
572
.000
3
.986c
.971
.970
.001
5.708
3
569
.001

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experiencec. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
Predictors of the “Design and implementation of coaching programs” selection criterion
In the first step, demographic characteristics were entered into the model as independent variables(predictors). The model significantly predicted (R2= .101, Adj. R2= .090, F (7, 584) =9.250, p<.001)
demographic characteristics (coaching experience, b = .261 and primary profession as a coach, b = .113) as
important predictors of the “Design and implementation of coaching programs” factor as a selection criterion forcoaches in amateur sports. In the second step, personality characteristics were added to the model. The model
continued to significantly predict (R2 =.394, Adj. R2=.381, F (12,584) =30.984, p<.001) the “Design andimplementation of coaching programs” as a selection criterion for coaches in amateur sports settings. In
particular, coaching experience (β= .139, p<0.05) remained a robust predictor while personality characteristics
such as consciousness (β= .256, p<0.001) and openness to experience (β= .311, p<0.001) emerged as important
predictors. The third and final step involved the addition of leadership characteristics and work performance. The
overall model continued to predict the “Design and implementation of coaching programs” selection criterion ofcoaches significantly (R2= .473, Adj. R2= .459, F (15, 584) =34.022, p<.001). The demographic factor ofcoaching experience (β= .118, p<0.05), and personality characteristics of consciousness (β= .139, p<0.01)
remained significant predictors while the leadership characteristics of intellectual stimulation (β= .099, p<.050)
and administrative skills (β= .146, p<.050) as well as work performance (β= .333, p<.001) showed a significant
positive association with the “Design and implementation of coaching programs” selection criterion. Table 4summarizes the indexes of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable “Design andimplementation of coaching programs”.
Table 4. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression- Dependent Variable: Design and implementationof coaching programs.
Sig.
F
Model R
R2
Adj. R2R2 Change
F Change
df1
df2
Change
1
.318a
.101
.090
.101
9.250
7
577
.000
2
.628b
.394
.381
.293
55.316
5
572
.000
3
.688c
.473
.459
.079
28.3793569.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experiencec. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in the club,gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1913
JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Predictors of the “Competition Management” selection criterion
In the first step, demographic factors were entered into the model as independent variables (predictors).
The model significantly predicted (R2= .079, Adj. R2= .068, F (7, 584) =7.070, p<.001) the primary profession asa coach (β= .105, p<.050) as an important predictor of the “Competition management” as a selection criterion forcoaches in amateur sports. In the second step, personality characteristics were added to the model. The model
continued to significantly predict (R2 =.283, Adj. R2=.268, F (12,584) =18.853, p<.001) the “Competition
management” factor as the selection criterion of coaches in amateur sports settings. The age of the coach (β=.147, p<0.050) and personality characteristics such as openness to experience (β= .366, p<0.001), consciousness(β= .180, p<0.01), and extraversion (β= .104, p<0.050) emerged as important predictors. The third and final step
involved the addition of leadership characteristics and work performance. The overall model continued to predict
the “Competition management” selection criterion of coaches significantly (R2= .307, Adj. R2= .288, F (15, 584)
=16.777, p<.001). The age of the coach (β= .129, p< .050), openness to experience (β= .239, p<0.050), andconsciousness (β= .132, p<0.50) remained significant predictors while work performance (β= .193, p<.050)
showed a significant positive association with the “Competition management” selection criterion. Table 5summarizes the indexes of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable “Competition
management”.
Table 5. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression - Dependent Variable: Competition management.
Model
1
2
3

R
.281a
.532b
.554c

R2
.079
.283
.307

Adj. R2
.068
.268
.288

R2 Change
.079
.204
.023

F Change
7.070
32.636
6.354

df1
7
5
3

df2
577
572
569

Sig.
F
Change
.000
.000
.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experiencec. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in the club,gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
Predictors of the “Psychological support for athletes” selection criterion
In the first step, demographic characteristics were entered into the model as independent variables(predictors). The model significantly predicted (R2= .043, Adj. R2= .031, F (7, 584) =3.707, p<.01) the primary
profession as a coach (β= .129, p<.01) and the age of the coach (β= .145, p<.05) as important predictors of the“Psychological support for athletes” as a selection criterion for coaches in amateur sports. In the second step,
personality characteristics were added to the model. The model continued to significantly predict (R2 =.361, Adj.
R2=.348, F (12,584) =26.952, p<.001) the “Psychological support for athletes” factor as a selection criterion ofcoaches in amateur sports settings. The age of the coach (β= .165, p<0.01), openness to experience (β= .251,
p<0.001), agreeableness (β= .219, p<0.01), and consciousness (β= .129, p<.05) emerged as important predictors.
The third and final step involved the addition of leadership characteristics and work performance. The overallmodel continued to significantly predict the “Psychological support for athletes” selection criterion for coaches(R2= .397, Adj. R2= .381, F (15, 584) =24.964, p<.001). The age of the coach (β= .153, p< .01), agreeableness(β= .213, p<0.001), and intellectual stimulation (β= .142, p< .01) in addition to work performance (β= .220,
p<.001) showed a significant positive association with the selection criterion of the “Psychological support forathletes”. Table 6 summarizes the indexes of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable“Psychological support for athletes”.
Table 6. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression - Dependent Variable: Psychological support forathletes.
Sig.
F
Model R
R2
Adj. R2R2 Change
F Change
df1
df2
Change
1
.207a
.043
.031
.043
3.707
7
577
.001
2
.601b
.361
.348
.318
56.979
5
572
.000
3
.630c
.397
.381
.036
11.2283569.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experiencec. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
1914---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Predictors of the “Commitment to the Club” selection criterion of coaches
In the first step, demographic factors were entered into the model as independent variables (predictors).
The model significantly predicted (R2= .049, Adj. R2= .038, F (7, 584) =4.254, p<.001) the primary profession asa coach (β= .174, p<.001), the age of the coach (β= .188, p<.01) and the coaching experience (β= .188, p<.01) as
important predictors of the “Commitment to the club” selection criterion for coaches in amateur sports. In thesecond step, personality characteristics were added to the model. The model continued to significantly predict(R2 =.233, Adj. R2=.217, F (12,584) =14.456, p<.001) the “Commitment to the club” factor as a selection
criterion for coaches in amateur sports settings. The age of the coach (β= .206, p< .01), the coaching experience(β= -.222, p<.01) and the primary profession as a coach (β= .104, p<.001) in addition to agreeableness (β= .308,
p< .001) emerged as important predictors. The third and final step involved the addition of leadershipcharacteristics and work performance. The overall model continued to significantly predict the “Commitment tothe club” selection criterion for coaches (R2= .264, Adj. R2= .245, F (15, 584) =13.616, p<.001). The
demographic characteristics of the coaching experience (β= -.234, p< .001), the age of the coach (β= .186, p<.01), and the primary profession as a coach (β= .094, p<.05) as well as the personality characteristic ofagreeableness (β= .283, p<0.001) and the leadership characteristic of administrative skills (β= .249, p< .001)
were found as important predictors of the “Commitment to the club” selection criterion. Table 7 summarizes theindexes of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the dependent variable “Commitment to the club”.
Table 7. Model Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression - Dependent Variable: Commitment to the club.
Model
1
2
3

R
.222a
.482b
.514c

R2
.049
.233
.264

Adj. R2
.038
.217
.245

R2 Change
.049
.184
.031

F Change
4.254
27.378
8.102

df1
7
5
3

df2
577
572
569

Sig.
F
Change
.000
.000
.000

a. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience.
b. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as a primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, and openness to experience.
c. Predictors: (Constant), coaching as primary profession, educational level, professional experience in theclub, gender, sports career, age, coaching experience, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,emotional stability, openness to experience, intellectual motivation, administrative skills, work performance.
Discussion
A three-stage Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis was used in this study to identify significant
predictors of the selection criteria for coaches employed by amateur sports clubs. The selection of sport coaches
is related to analyzing the coaching job and defining the specific tasks required in a given context (Lyle, 2002;
Horton, 2015). Selection criteria encompass the core functions of coaching, such as designing and delivering
training, managing competition aspects, and supporting athletes (Lara-Bercial et al., 2017). Additionally, theevaluation and selection process considers factors such as coaching results for athletes, personal achievements incoaching, and commitment to the club (MacLean & Chelladurai, 1995).
The first hypothesis of this study examined whether certain demographic characteristics of coachessuch as age, gender, educational level, sports career, coaching experience, professional experience at the sameclub, and primary profession- predict their selection criteria. Regression analysis supported this hypothesis,
revealing that the coach’s primary profession is a significant predictor of all selection criteria. Specifically,coaches who reported coaching as their primary profession were selected at higher rates across all selection
factors. Notably, while 87.9% of the coaches in the study sample held a professional coaching license, only
45.6% reported coaching as their primary professional occupation.
Several studies in the sports coaching literature indicate that the profile of successful coaches is closely
related to their age, professional experience, and sport-related experience (Côté & Sedgwick, 2003; Cushion etal., 2003; Erikson et al., 2007; Gilbert et al., 2009; Gilbert & Rangeon, 2011; Kavussanu et al., 2008; Nash &Sproule, 2009; Schempp & McCullick, 2010; Wiman et al., 2010; Young et al., 2009). Additionally, both years
of practice and coaching experience have been identified as key predictors of coaching efficacy (Feltz et al.,2008; Kavussanu et al., 2008). Mallett (2010) and Jones, Armour, and Potrac (2003) suggested that a backgroundin sports participation considerably enhances understanding of the technical, tactical, and cultural aspects ofcoaching. Consistent with these findings, this study revealed that both age and experience as a coach and athlete
were significant predictors of most selection criteria factors. Consequently, sports clubs involved in this study
place a high value on experience gained from years of coaching or athletic participation and prioritize selecting
coaches who have coaching as their primary profession and possess such substantial experience.
This trend can also be attributed to the essential need for sports clubs to hire dedicated and skilled professionals
to ensure effective coaching and overall success. Additionally, the increasing pressure from institutional and----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1915
JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------governmental agencies to promote the employment of qualified professionals, coupled with financial support for
sports clubs, contributes to this trend (Lara-Bercial et al., 2020). Specifically, in the Greek amateur sports
context, these findings reveal a strong emphasis on the professional status of coaches, with sports clubs placing ahigh value on dedication to the coaching profession.
It was also expected that personality characteristics would significantly relate to and predict the
selection criteria for coaches. Regression analysis supported this hypothesis, showing that the five dimensions of
personality - extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness to experience - aresignificantly related to and predict the coaches’ selection criteria. Notably, conscientiousness and openness toexperience were found to predict five of the six selection criteria each. Coaches who scored highly in these
personality dimensions, were selected with the highest scores across these selection criteria. Personality traits
such as openness to experience and conscientiousness have been found to positively correlate with the successful
execution of organizational and administrative tasks involved in planning the coaching process (Shelley &Sherman, 1997) and with effective teaching and guidance in coaching (Bozionelos, 2004). The results align withresearch indicating that the personality profile of successful coaches often includes facets of the big fivepersonality traits, such as sociability, confidence, organization, self-esteem, and emotional stability (Predoiu etal., 2021). These personality traits are typically found in individuals who are organized, hardworking, creative,
disciplined, ambitious, patient, reliable, calm, committed to their relationships, and adept at managing stress(Berry et al., 2000; Karney & Bradbury,1995; McCrae, 1996). They also encompass the competencies needed toeffectively carry out coaching tasks across various positions and fields (Horton, 2015; Lara-Bercial et al., 2017;
Lyle, 2002; Werthner & Trudel, 2006). The study’s findings provide evidence that amateur sports clubs consider
personality traits when selecting coaches because they significantly relate to and predict the selection criteria
used.
Next, the study examined the predictive validity of leadership characteristics and general work
performance in relation to coaches’ selection criteria. The regression analysis supported the relevant hypothesis,
revealing that intellectual stimulation predicted several factors: “coaching results for athletes”, “the coach’s
personal achievements”, “the design and implementation of coaching programs” and “psychological support forathletes”. Additionally, the coach’s administrative skills were found to predict both “the design andimplementation of coaching programs” and “the commitment to the club”. Furthermore, general work
performance emerged as a significant predictor for all selection criteria. Coaches who received high scores
across all selection criteria excelled in evaluations of their leadership characteristics and overall work
performance. These findings align with literature suggesting that transformational leadership is positively
associated with athlete results (Callow et al., 2009; Charbonneau et al., 2006). Specifically, intellectual
stimulation, a key aspect of transformational leadership, involves encouraging athletes to assess situations, solve
emerging problems, leverage their existing abilities, develop new skills, and continuously review and improvetheir performance (Bass, 1999).
Conclusions
In this study, we evaluated the predictive validity of various demographic factors, personality traits,
leadership qualities, and general work performance on the selection criteria for coaches in a Greek sample. The
results showed that the primary profession of the coach is a demographic factor significantly related with all theselection criteria, while age, coaching professional experience and previous athletic experience significantly
predicted most selection criteria. These findings highlight the high value placed by sports clubs on the primary
professional occupation of the coach and the experience gained from the years of coaching and athletic
participation.
Personality traits, especially conscientiousness and openness to experience, found to be significantly
related with the selection criteria for coaches. In addition, results showed that those coaches with high scores
across all selection criteria excelled in evaluations of their leadership characteristics and overall work
performance. Thus, the hierarchical regression analysis revealed that amateur sports clubs prioritized coaches
who had coaching as their primary profession, had extensive coaching experience as coaches and athletes,
exhibited high levels of conscientiousness and openness to experience, and demonstrated strong intellectual
stimulation and overall work performance.
In the amateur sports context, it is clear that sports clubs favor coaches who are professionally
dedicated, excel in their roles, and possess the personality and leadership characteristics necessary for effective
coaching. This study enhances our understanding of the coach selection process, emphasizing its complexity andthe importance of considering knowledge, skills, competencies, and individual characteristics essential for
effective coaching in amateur settings. The findings are valuable not only for amateur sports clubs but also forcoaches seeking employment in this context. Future research can build on this study to explore coach selection
criteria and their predictors across various regions, sporting environments, competitive levels, and types of sports(both individual and team).
Conflicts of Interest There are no conflicts of interest to be declared.
1916---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------References
Anthi, C., Kipreos, G., Antonopoulou, P., Gdonteli, K., Kakkos, V., & Stavrou, N. (2024). Development andvalidation of the evaluation and selection criteria scale for coaches: Factor structure, validity and reliability.
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 19(4), 1102-1119. https://doi.org/10.55860/97rmwt69
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2023). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. Kogan
Page Publishers.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European journalof work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Berry, D. S., Willingham, J. K., & Thayer, C. A. (2000). Affect and personality as predictors of conflict andcloseness in young adults' friendships. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(1), 84-107.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). The big five of personality and work involvement. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
19(1), 69-81.
Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of transformational
leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 21(4), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903204754
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding Sports Coaching (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Cassidy, T., Potrac, P., & Rynne, S. (2023). Understanding sports coaching: The pedagogical, social andcultural foundations of coaching practice. Routledge.
Chan, J. T., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The value of emotional intelligence for high performance coaching: A
response to commentaries. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(3), 351-355.
Charbonneau, D., & Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Sports Performance:
The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 31(7): 1521 - 1534.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02686.x
Choi, D. W., Cho, M. H., & Kim, Y. K. (2005). Youth sport coaches' qualities for successful coaching. World
Leisure Journal, 47(2), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2005.9674391
Coakes S. J. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 12.0 for Windows. Queensland, Australia: Wiley.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis forthe behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623892
Côté, J., & Sedgwick, W. A. (2003). Effective behaviors of expert rowing coaches: A qualitative investigation of
Canadian athletes and coaches. International sports journal, 7(1), 62.
Cushion, C. J., & Partington, M. (2014). A critical analysis of the conceptualisation of ‘coaching philosophy’.
Sport, Education and Society, 21(6), 851–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.958817
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach Education and Continuing Professional
Development:
ExperienceandLearningto
Coach. Quest, 55(3),215–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800
Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2007). Work–family conflict in coaching I: A top-down perspective. Journal ofSport Management, 21(3), 377-406. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.21.3.377
Erickson, K., Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Sport experiences, milestones, and educational activities
associated with high-performance coaches’ development. The sport psychologist, 21(3), 302-316.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.3.302
Feltz, D. L., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Self-Efficacy in Sport. Research and Strategies for Working with
Athletes, Teams, and Coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gilbert, W., & Rangeon, S. (2011). Current directions in coaching research. Revista Iberoamericana dePsicologia del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 6(2), 217–236.
Gilbert, W., Gallimore, R., & Trudel, P. (2009). A learning community approach to coach development in youth
sport. Journal of coaching education, 2(2), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1123/jce.2.2.3
Graham, J. A., & Dixon, M. A. (2017). Work–family balance among coach-fathers: A qualitative examination ofenrichment, conflict, and role management strategies. Journal of Sport Management, 31(3), 288-305.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0117
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis with readings (7thed.). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
Hedlund, D. P., Fletcher, C. A., Pack, S. M., & Dahlin, S. (2018). The education of sport coaches: What should
they learn and when should they learn it?. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5(2), 192-199.
https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2017-0110
Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology ((3rd ed., pp. 239-267) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horton, P. (2015). The role of the coach. In C. Nash (Ed.), Practical sports coaching (pp. 3–15). London:
Routledge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1917
JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jenkins, M., & Griffith, R. (2004). Using Personality Constructs to Predict Performance: Narrow or Broad
Bandwidth. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-0551-9
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing Expert Knowledge: A Case Study of a Top-level
Professional
SoccerCoach.
Sport,
Education
andSociety,8(2),213–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320309254
Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Current opinion in
psychology, 16, 154-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006
Jowett, S., & Arthur, C. (2019). Effective coaching: The links between coach leadership and coach-athlete
relationship—From theory to research to practice. In M. H. Anshel, T. A. Petrie, & J. A. Steinfeldt (Eds.),
APA handbook of sport and exercise psychology: Sport psychology (pp. 419–449). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000123-022
Kaprinis S. (2015). Multifactor Assessment Model of Personality, Job Behavior, Leadership, Cognitive State and
Job Performance of Employees Physical Education Graduates. PhD dissertation, University of Peloponnese,
Department
ofSport
Management.
Publicationin
http://195.251.38.253:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/2280?show=full
Kaprinis S., Kakkos V., Strigas E. & Kipreos G. (2014). Development, validity and reliability of Physical
Education Instructor’s personality description scale. (American Journal of Applied Psychology 3(2): 39-46.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review oftheory, methods, and research. Psychological bulletin, 118(1), 3.
Kavussanu, M., Boardley, I. D., Jutkiewicz, N., Vincent, S., & Ring, C. (2008). Coaching efficacy and coachingeffectiveness: Examining their predictors and comparing coaches’ and athletes’ reports. The Sport
Psychologist, 22(4), 383-404. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.22.4.383
Kipreos, G., Kaprinis, S., Perrea A., Kakkos V. (2016). Job Performance Measurement of Physical Education
Graduates in Private Fitness Centers and Municipal Sports Organizations. International Journal of Sports
Science and Physical Education. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 10-16. doi:10.11648/j.ijsspe.20160101.13
Kramers, S., Camiré, M., & Bean, C. (2020). Examining program quality in a national junior golf development
program. International Sport Coaching Journal, 7(2), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2019-0025
Lara-Bercial, S., Bales, J., & North, J. (2020). Coaching around the world: On becoming a profession. Coachingfor human development and performance in sports, 93-121.
Lara-Bercial, S., Duffy, P., & Harrington, M. (2013). International Sport Coaching Framework 1.2.
Lara-Bercial, S., North, J., Petrovic, L., Oltmanns, K., Minkhorst, J., Hämäläinen, K., & Livingstone, K. (2017).
European sport coaching framework v1. Erasmus+ Programme.
Lyle, J. (2020). Coaching in the Sport Domain: Definitions and Conceptualisations. In: Resende, R., Gomes,
A.R. (eds) Coaching for Human Development and Performance in Sports. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63912-9_2
Lyle, J. W. B. (2002). Sports Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’ Behavior. London: Routledge.
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2017). Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier.
Maclean, J., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Dimensions of Coaching Performance: Development of a Scale. Journalof Sport Management, 9, 194-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.9.2.194
Mallett, C. J. (2010). Becoming a high-performance Coach. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports Coaching:
Professionalization and Practice: Elsevier Health Sciences UK.
Martens, R. (2012). Successful coaching, 4th edition. Human Kinetics.
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323
Mills, J. P., & Boardley, I. D. (2017). Development and initial validation of an indirect measure oftransformational leadership integrity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 32, 34-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.05.005
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D.
Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of job performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, anddevelopment (pp. 56–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. R., & Shiarella, A. H. (1997). Implications of the multidimensional nature of job performance forthe validity of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test validity. Personnel psychology,
50(4), 823-854.
Nash, C. S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sports Science& Coaching, 4(1), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.
Neelis, L., Faucett, A., & Thompson, M. (2020). Quality Sport Coaching: The Role of the National Standards forSport Coaches. Strategies, 33(6), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2020.1812328
North, J. (2009). The Coaching Workforce 2009-2016. Sports Coach UK, Leeds, UK.
Perkins, P., & Hahn, A. (2019). Positive Youth Development through a Co-Designed Modified Boxing Program.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 148-199. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2020.81013
1918---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roCHRISTINA ANTHI, GEORGE KIPREOS, KRINANTHI GDONTELI, VASILIOS KAKKOS,NEKTARIOS STAVROU--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Predoiu, R., Predoiu, A., Cosma, G., Bota, A., & Mitrache, G. (2021). Contributions to the shaping of thesuccessful coach personality profile. Journal of Sport & Kinetic Movement, 1(37).
https://doi.org/10.52846/jskm/37.2021.1.1
Rhind, D. J., & Jowett, S. (2010). Relationship maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete relationship: The
development of the COMPASS model. Journal of applied sport psychology, 22(1), 106-121.
https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.121
Schaeperkoetter, C., Mays, J., & Bass, J. R. (2017). “When there was no money in it, there were no men in it”:
Examining gender differences in the evaluation of high-performance coaches. International Sport Coaching
Journal, 4(1), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2016-0051
Schempp, P., & McCullick, B. (2010). Coaches’ expertise. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sport coaching:professionalization and practice (pp.221-323). London: Churchill Livingstone.
Shelley, G. A., & Sherman, C. P. (1997). Communication in coaching and athletics: Guidelines to promote
successful interactions. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 109-129.
Stodter, A., & Cushion, C. J. (2019). Evidencing the impact of coaches’ learning: Changes in coachingknowledge and practice over time. Journal of sports sciences, 37(18), 2086-2093.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1621045
Sullivan, P., Rhind, D., & Jowett, S. (2014). Communication. In A. Papaioannou & D. Hackfort (Eds.),
Routledge Companion to Sport and Exercise Psychology: Global Perspectives and Fundamental Concepts(pp. 559–570). Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th) ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson
Education.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon/Pearson Education.
Taylor, W. G., & Garratt, D. (2013). Coaching and professionalization. In Routledge handbook of sports
coaching (pp. 27-39). Routledge.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and Coach Education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald & M. O'Sullivan(Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 516-539). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2006). A New Theoretical Perspective for Understanding How Coaches Learn to
Coach. Sport Psychologist, 2, 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.20.2.198
Wiman, M., Salmoni, W. & Hall, C. (2010). An examination of the definition and development of expert
coaching, Journal of Coaching Science, 4(2), 37-60.
Young, B. W., Jemczyk, K., Brophy, K., & Côté, J. (2009). Discriminating skilled coaching groups: Quantitative
examination of developmental experiences and activities. International Journal of Sports Science andCoaching, 4, 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1260/174795409789623937
Zakrajsek, R. A., Martin, S. B., & Zizzi, S. J. (2011). American High School Football Coaches’ Attitudes toward
Sport Psychology Consultation and Intentions to Use Sport Psychology Services. International Journal ofSports Science & Coaching, 6(3), 461-478. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.6.3.461----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1919
JPES ® www.efsupit.ro