Wen Su
Liqin Wang2†- 1Public Courses Teaching Department, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China
- 2Graduate School, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China
- 3College of Leisure and Digital Sports, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China
Introduction: The autonomy-supportive coaching style is recognized for its positive impact on athletes’ well-being and performance. However, the transition of excessive autonomy into a laissez-faire coaching style has not been thoroughly examined within the context of coach evaluation scales. Existing scales focus predominantly on the positive dimensions of autonomy support, and do not possess the capabilities to measure outcomes which may be viewed as negative or other outcomes. This study aims to integrate the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles within the same measurement framework.
Methods: Our study developed a comprehensive scale to assess both the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles, drawing on items from the Sport Climate Questionnaire for autonomy support and adapting items from leadership research for laissez-faire coaching. We conducted two studies: the first with 148 athletes to refine the laissez-faire items and the second with 460 athletes to validate the full scale, utilizing exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analysis. We also measured internal consistency and split-half reliability.
Results: The finalized scale includes a 6-item autonomy-supportive subscale and a 5-item laissez-faire subscale. Validation processes confirmed the scale’s construct and criterion validity, alongside its reliability.
Discussion: The Chinese Coaches’ Autonomy-Supportive—Laissez-Faire Coaching Style Scale effectively captures both the beneficial and potentially detrimental aspects of coaching styles, addressing a critical gap in the literature and providing a reliable tool for evaluating coaching approaches.
1 Introduction
Coach-related factors in the sport environment significantly impact athletes’ growth and development (Côté et al., 2010). Researchers have found improvements in athletes’ subjective vitality (Reinboth and Duda, 2006; Adie et al., 2012), well-being (Haerens et al., 2018), performance (Gillet et al., 2010; Lemelin et al., 2022), mental toughness (Mahoney et al., 2016), and persistence (Pelletier et al., 2001) linked to an autonomy-supportive coaching style. Although an autonomy-supportive coaching style benefits athletes, some coaches express concern that their approach might blur the distinction between providing autonomy support and adopting a laissez-faire attitude during practice. This ambiguity arises from the conceptual overlap between the two coaching styles (Stolz and Pill, 2016; SueSee et al., 2021). An autonomy-supportive coaching style includes empathizing with athletes, acknowledging their feelings, and offering opportunities for action and decision-making (Stebbings et al., 2012; Rocchi et al., 2013). Moreover, a crucial skill in this coaching style is to listen carefully to players’ responses, interpreting their significance or completeness (Pill et al., 2021a). By contrast, a laissez-faire coaching style is marked by decision-making avoidance, a lack of positive feedback and involvement, and permitting athletes to make their own choices and decisions (Skogstad et al., 2007; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008). It is worth noting that, although Self-Teaching Style K is not exactly the same, it shares some similarities. In both styles, the player takes on both the coach and learner roles, making all decisions about the subject matter and activities to achieve their goals (Pill et al., 2021b). However, while both autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles allow athletes to make choices and decisions, they differ in the level of authorization (Wong and Giessner, 2018). Distinguishing between coaches who adopt an autonomy-supportive or a laissez-faire coaching style is crucial for understanding their effectiveness and impact on athlete development.
Despite the potential confusion between the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles, existing scales fail to differentiate between the two. The Sport Climate Questionnaire is the most widely used instrument to assess coaching style (Deci and Ryan, 2001); however, this scale measures only the autonomy-supportive dimension and does not include laissez-faire. More recently, Delrue et al. (2019) introduced a circumplex model of coaching styles, categorizing four coaching styles into eight more specific approaches: autonomy support (participative and attuning), structure (guiding and clarifying), control (demanding and domineering), and chaos (abandoning and awaiting). This research did not explore the relationship between the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles, even though these styles were incorporated into the framework. Additionally, the original laissez-faire leadership scale, part of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1996), forms the basis for most related scales in leadership styles but only evaluates laissez-faire leadership, omitting autonomy-supportive leadership.
This study aims to integrate the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles within the same measurement framework. Furthermore, the development of the Chinese Coaches’ Autonomy-Supportive—Laissez-Faire Coaching Style Scale will provide coaches with a vital foundation for comprehending the degree of the autonomy-supportive coaching style in their practices.
2 Study 1
2.1 Methods
2.1.1 Participants
Study 1 encompassed 148 athletes from Guangdong Province, consisting of 77 men and 71 women, with ages spanning 13–30 years (M = 20, SD = 3.079). The distribution of age groups was as follows: 13–15 (n = 8), 16–20 (n = 87), 21–25 (n = 47), and 26–30 years (n = 6). Training experience ranged from 0–23 years (M = 6.66, SD = 4.033) and was categorized as 0–5 (n = 75), 6–10 (n = 49), 11–15 (n = 20), 16–20 (n = 3), and 21–23 (n = 1). Participants were involved in athletics (n = 100), martial arts (n = 39), and gymnastics (n = 9). The Institutional Review Board of Guangzhou Sport University approved all procedures. All participants or their guardians provided written informed consent.
2.1.2 Measures
The laissez-faire leadership subscale is adapted from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1996). A 7-item preliminary scale was formulated by integrating the laissez-faire leadership subscale with the sports environment (Avolio et al., 1999; Skogstad et al., 2007; Hinkin and Schriesheim, 2008; Xirasagar, 2008). A defining characteristic of the laissez-faire coaching style is inaction, as reflected in “My coach lets me handle training challenges independently.” Responses were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
2.1.3 Data collection and analysis
Data were collected online via the popular Chinese professional survey platform Wenjuanxing.1 Following approval from the program center’s head, athletes were given the link to complete the scale. SPSS 25.0 facilitated data analysis, including item-total and item-item correlation analyses for item elimination. Items with correlation coefficients with an overall score below 0.6 were excluded, alongside those with low correlation coefficients with other items.
2.2 Results
2.2.1 Item-total and item-item correlation analyses
Initially, the correlation coefficients between each item and the overall score of the laissez-faire coaching style subscale were evaluated. It was determined that no items needed to be removed after reviewing items with correlation coefficients less than 0.6. Subsequently, two items were identified for deletion based on the item-item correlation analysis results, specifically, “If I do not seek help from my coach, my coach will not offer assistance” and “My coach lets me handle training challenges independently.” These items’ correlation coefficients with other items consistently fell below 0.6. They were excluded to ensure dimensional consistency and relevance to the context of Chinese competitive sports.
3 Study 2
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Participants
Study 2 involved 460 athletes from Guangdong Province, consisting of 239 men and 221 women, with ages ranging from 10–32 years (M = 18.78, SD = 3.763). The age groups were as follows: 10–15 (n = 90), 16–20 (n = 237), 21–25 (n = 111), 26–30 (n = 21), and 31–32 years (n = 1). Training experience ranged from 0–23 years (M = 8.49, SD = 3.910) and was categorized as follows: 0–5 (n = 118), 6–10 (n = 223), 11–15 (n = 97), 16–20 (n = 20), 21–23 (n = 2). Participants engaged in various sports including fencing (n = 58), volleyball (n = 49), gymnastics (n = 45), badminton (n = 42), weightlifting (n = 29), swimming (n = 28), basketball (n = 28), table tennis (n = 28), sanda (n = 27), diving (n = 25), athletics (n = 23), artistic swimming (n = 20), trampolining (n = 20), Wushu (n = 19), water polo (n = 16), and tennis (n = 3). All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Guangzhou Sport University. All participants or their guardians provided written informed consent.
3.1.2 Measures
The autonomy-supportive subscale, initially derived from the health domain (Williams and Deci, 1996) was later adapted for the sports context. This scale measures athletes’ perceptions of autonomy support from their coaches, exemplified by “I feel that my coach provides me with choices and options.” The adjusted scale showed robust psychometric properties (Reinboth et al., 2004). A 7-point Likert scale was used to rate responses (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
Study 2 implemented the Self-Esteem Scale and the Subjective Vitality Scale to validate the study’s scale. The Self-Esteem Scale is known for its reliability in assessing positive and negative self-perception, contributing to overall self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965; Wang et al., 1999), including items like “I feel that I have a number of good qualities,” rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). The Subjective Vitality Scale measures participants’ positive vitality and energy (Ryan and Frederick, 1997), with items such as “I feel alive and vital right now.” The Chinese version of the Subjective Vitality Scale demonstrated high internal consistency (CR = 0.87) in sports settings (Liu and Chung, 2014), with responses rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
3.1.3 Data collection and analysis
Data were collected online via the popular Chinese professional survey platform Wenjuanxing.2 Following the program center head’s approval, athletes were sent the link to complete the scale. For analysis, Study 2 used SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 28.0. The exploratory factor analysis removed items with factor loadings below 0.5 or with significant cross-loadings. The confirmatory factor analysis evaluated construct validity. Excellent-fit indices included CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI ≥ 0.95, and RMSEA ≤ 0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999), with acceptable-fit indices of CFI ≥ 0.90, TLI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08 (Browne and Cudeck, 1992; Hu and Bentler, 1999), and PNFI ≥ 0.60 (Netemeyer et al., 1990). The appropriate range of χ2/df was recommended to be between 2 and 5 (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004; Côté et al., 2017). Furthermore, correlation analysis was performed for reliability and validity tests.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Exploratory factor analysis
The exploratory factor analysis on data comprising 11 items related to the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles used principal component analysis with two factors for extraction and employed varimax rotation. The sample suitability test (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.92) and spherical test (χ2 = 3923.27, p < 0.001) verified the sample’s appropriateness for factor analysis. The autonomy-supportive subscale’s factor loadings ranged from 0.76 to 0.88, while the laissez-faire subscale’s loadings varied from 0.74 to 0.88, with no items displaying significant cross-factor loadings (Table 1). Each subscale had an eigenvalue greater than 1, cumulatively contributing 74.81% to the variance. The autonomy-supportive dimension’s eigenvalue was 4.47, explaining 40.61% of the interpretable variance, and the laissez-faire dimension’s eigenvalue was 3.76, accounting for 34.20%.
Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis: descriptive statistics and factor loadings.
3.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis
The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with two dimensions (autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles) serving as potential variables. The analysis yielded an acceptable fit to the data: χ2/df = 4.14, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, PNFI = 0.75.
To determine if the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles could be conceptualized as a single dimension, all items were used as observed variables, while a single latent variable was utilized to model the structural equations. The results demonstrated the following fit indices: χ2/df = 27.67, RMSEA = 0.24, CFI = 0.70, TLI = 0.63, PNFI = 0.55. The model did not meet acceptable standards, indicating that the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles represent two distinct dimensions rather than a single dimension (Table 2).
Table 2. Two-dimension and single-dimension fitting indicators.
3.2.3 Correlation analysis between the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles
A significant negative correlation was found between the two subscales (autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles) (Table 3).
Table 3. Correlation analysis results between autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching dimensions.
3.2.4 Reliability analysis
Reliability tests were conducted to assess the consistency of the autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles (Table 4). The findings indicated that the internal consistency for both dimensions was excellent. Furthermore, the split-half reliability for both styles achieved high reliability indices.
Table 4. Reliability measures of the Chinese Coaches’ Autonomy-Supportive—Laissez-Faire Coaching Style Scale.
3.2.5 Correlation analysis between the subscales and two additional scales
A correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the validity of the scale, incorporating two additional factors: self-esteem and subjective vitality (Table 5). The analysis revealed that self-esteem had a significant positive relationship with the autonomy-supportive coaching style and a substantial negative relationship with the laissez-faire coaching style. Likewise, subjective vitality showed a significant positive correlation with the autonomy-supportive coaching style and a notable negative relationship with the laissez-faire coaching style.
Table 5. Correlation analysis results between coaching styles and psychological factors: self-esteem and subjective vitality.
4 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to assess Chinese coaches’ autonomy-supportive and laissez-faire coaching styles, providing a comprehensive foundation for evaluating coaching behavior. This scale included 11 items, with six items dedicated to measuring the autonomy-supportive coaching style and five items for assessing the laissez-faire coaching style. Evidence from this study supports the reliability and validity of the scale.
The autonomy-supportive subscale utilized the well-known Sport Climate Questionnaire, whereas the laissez-faire subscale, derived from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, was adjusted to suit the sports context. After removing specific laissez-faire items, these two subscales formed a unique scale structure with contrasting directions. Unlike other instruments that assess coaching behavior, such as the Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire and the Coaches’ Interpersonal Style Questionnaire, which measure dimensions like coaches’ autonomy support and autonomy thwarting simultaneously (Rocchi et al., 2017; Pulido et al., 2018), our scale recognizes these dimensions as inherently opposing and interconnected, underscoring the complexity of coaching styles. It acknowledges that a coach can adopt any coaching styles, as coaching styles are choices rather than personal characteristics. Knowledge of decision making between athlete and coach allows for the selection of different styles and encourages a “non-versus” approach to coaching, where different styles are not seen as better or worse, but as mean to achieve different outcomes (Mosston and Ashworth, 2008). This approach frames coaching as a structural act of teaching rather than one driven by personal preference (Pill et al., 2021c).
The notion of autonomy support is derived from self-determination theory within the realm of coaching styles, while laissez-faire originates from managerial leadership styles. To validate this scale, the study introduced two additional variables: self-esteem and subjective vitality. Aligning with previous research (Coatsworth and Conroy, 2009; Balaguer et al., 2012; Cheval et al., 2017), our findings indicate a positive association between the autonomy-supportive coaching style and both self-esteem and subjective vitality. Existing theories suggest that athletes’ basic psychological needs may mediate the impact of coaching style on self-esteem (Coatsworth and Conroy, 2009; Cheval et al., 2017). Moreover, athletes’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive coaching positively predict psychological need satisfaction, which, in turn, positively affects subjective vitality (Balaguer et al., 2012). Conversely, our study reveals a negative correlation between the laissez-faire coaching style and both self-esteem and subjective vitality, consistent with research indicating a negative association between laissez-faire coaching and positive psychological outcomes (Skogstad et al., 2007; Robert and Vandenberghe, 2022). Specifically, laissez-faire leadership has been linked to increased depressive symptoms and reduced positive mental health (Robert and Vandenberghe, 2022), possibly due to diminished autonomy and role clarity, leading to decreased well-being (Lundmark et al., 2022; Desgourdes et al., 2024). Our study also finds that the laissez-faire coaching style has a negative effect on positive psychological factors including self-esteem and subjective vitality. By bridging the gap between coaching and leadership styles, this study developed a scale that encompasses various coaching styles and offers valuable insights for future coaching practices.
The development of the Chinese Coaches’ Autonomy-Supportive—Laissez-Faire Coaching Style Scale integrates coaching and leadership styles, supported by statistical evidence of its reliability and validity. Nevertheless, the study has limitations. First, it primarily surveyed athletes from provincial sports teams, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to different levels of sports teams. Future research should assess the scale’s applicability to diverse athlete groups. Second, while this scale focuses on the “degree” of autonomy support from coaches, similar considerations may apply to other coaching styles, such as controlling styles. Third, although the scale incorporated insights from leadership research, further empirical studies are needed to elucidate its relationship with other psychological factors.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available. The data can be found here: https://osf.io/5h6te/.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Guangzhou Sport University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin.
Author contributions
WS: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LW: Methodology, Writing – original draft. YD: Methodology, Writing – original draft. DZ: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This project was supported by the Guangdong Province Social Science Foundation (No. GD20XTY20).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., and Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well-and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: a longitudinal investigation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.008
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 72, 441–462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789
Balaguer, I., González, L., Fabra, P., Castillo, I., Mercé, J., and Duda, J. L. (2012). Coaches' interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well-and ill-being of young soccer players: a longitudinal analysis. J. Sports Sci. 30, 1619–1629. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2012.731517
Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1996). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. West. J. Nurs. Res. doi: 10.1037/t03624-000
Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Methods Res. 21, 230–258. doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005
Cheval, B., Chalabaev, A., Quested, E., Courvoisier, D. S., and Sarrazin, P. (2017). How perceived autonomy support and controlling coach behaviors are related to well-and ill-being in elite soccer players: a within-person changes and between-person differences analysis. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 28, 68–77. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.10.006
Coatsworth, J. D., and Conroy, D. E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Dev. Psychol. 45, 320–328. doi: 10.1037/a0014027
Côté, J., Bruner, M., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., and Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete development and coaching. Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice 63, 84
Côté, S. M., Orri, M., Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., Japel, C., et al. (2017). Psychometric properties of the mental health and social Inadaptation assessment for adolescents (MIA) in a population-based sample. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 26:e1566. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1566
Delrue, J., Reynders, B., Broek, G. V., Aelterman, N., De Backer, M., Decroos, S., et al. (2019). Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: a circumplex approach. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 40, 110–126. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.008
Desgourdes, C., Hasnaoui, J., Umar, M., and Feliu, J. G. (2024). Decoding laissez-faire leadership: an in-depth study on its influence over employee autonomy and well-being at work. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 20, 1047–1065. doi: 10.1007/s11365-023-00927-5
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., and Baldes, B. (2010). Influence of coaches' autonomy support on athletes' motivation and sport performance: a test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 11, 155–161. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.004
Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., De Meester, A., Delrue, J., Tallir, I., Vande Broek, G., et al. (2018). Different combinations of perceived autonomy support and control: identifying the most optimal motivating style. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 23, 16–36. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2017.1346070
Hinkin, T. R., and Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of" nonleadership": from laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1234–1248. doi: 10.1037/a0012875
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Lemelin, E., Verner-Filion, J., Carpentier, J., Carbonneau, N., and Mageau, G. A. (2022). Autonomy support in sport contexts: the role of parents and coaches in the promotion of athlete well-being and performance. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 11, 305–319. doi: 10.1037/spy0000287
Liu, J. D., and Chung, P. K. (2014). Development and initial validation of the psychological needs satisfaction scale in physical education. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 18, 101–122. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2013.872106
Lundmark, R., Richter, A., and Tafvelin, S. (2022). Consequences of managers’ laissez-faire leadership during organizational restructuring. J. Chang. Manag. 22, 40–58. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2021.1951811
Mahoney, J. W., Ntoumanis, N., Gucciardi, D. F., Mallett, C. J., and Stebbings, J. (2016). Implementing an autonomy-supportive intervention to develop mental toughness in adolescent rowers. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 28, 199–215. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2015.1101030
Mosston, M., and Ashworth, S. (2008). Teaching physical education. 1st online Edn: Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning.
Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., and Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 148–157. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., and Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: a prospective study. Motiv. Emot. 25, 279–306. doi: 10.1023/A:1014805132406
Pill, S., SueSee, B., Rankin, J., and Hewitt, M. (2021a). “Coaching by guided discovery: style F” in The Spectrum of sport coaching styles (NY, USA: Routledge), 65–73.
Pill, S., SueSee, B., Rankin, J., and Hewitt, M. (2021b). “Player self-coaching: style K” in The Spectrum of sport coaching styles (NY, USA: Routledge), 101–107.
Pill, S., SueSee, B., Rankin, J., and Hewitt, M. (2021c). The spectrum of sport coaching styles. NY, USA: Routledge New York.
Pulido, J. J., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Leo, F. M., Sánchez-Cano, J., and García-Calvo, T. (2018). Development and validation of coaches’ interpersonal style questionnaire. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 22, 25–37. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2017.1369982
Reinboth, M., and Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: a longitudinal perspective. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 7, 269–286. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.06.002
Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., and Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motiv. Emot. 28, 297–313. doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000040156.81924.b8
Robert, V., and Vandenberghe, C. (2022). Laissez-faire leadership and employee well-being: the contribution of perceived supervisor organizational status. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 31, 940–957. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2022.2081074
Rocchi, M. A., Pelletier, L. G., and Couture, A. L. (2013). Determinants of coach motivation and autonomy supportive coaching behaviours. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14, 852–859. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.07.002
Rocchi, M., Pelletier, L., and Desmarais, P. (2017). The validity of the interpersonal behaviors questionnaire (IBQ) in sport. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 21, 15–25. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1242488
Ryan, R. M., and Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Pers. 65, 529–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: psychology press.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., and Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12, 80–92. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Stebbings, J., Taylor, I. M., Spray, C. M., and Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Antecedents of perceived coach interpersonal behaviors: the coaching environment and coach psychological well-and ill-being. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 34, 481–502. doi: 10.1123/jsep.34.4.481
Stolz, S. A., and Pill, S. (2016). A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS. Sport Educ. Soc. 21, 239–261. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2014.890930
SueSee, B., Pill, S., Davies, M., and Williams, J. (2021). “Getting the tip of the pen on the paper”: how the spectrum of teaching styles narrows the gap between the hope and the happening. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 41, 1–10. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0164
Wang, X., Wang, X.-L., and Ma, H. (1999). Mental health assessment scale manual. Chin Mental Health J Suppl 13, 194–195.
Williams, G. C., and Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-determination theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 767–779. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Wong, S. I., and Giessner, S. R. (2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: an expectancy-match perspective. J. Manag. 44, 757–783. doi: 10.1177/0149206315574597
Keywords: coaching style, autonomy-supportive coaching style, laissez-faire coaching style, coach evaluation scale, coaching style assessment
Citation: Su W, Wang L, Ding Y and Zhao D (2024) Development of the Chinese coaches’ autonomy-supportive—laissez-faire coaching style scale. Front. Psychol. 15:1412240. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1412240
Edited by:
David Manzano Sánchez, University of Extremadura, SpainReviewed by:
Soukaina Hattabi, University of Jendouba, TunisiaBrendan SueSee, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
Copyright © 2024 Su, Wang, Ding and Zhao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Daliang Zhao, zhaodaliang@tom.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship