2019, Contreira Psychometric properties of the Brazilian

Prévia do material em texto

Original research
Psychometric properties of the Brazilian
version of the Coach–Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire for coaches
Andressa Ribeiro Contreira1,
José Roberto Andrade do Nascimento Junior2,
Gislaine Contessoto Pizzo1, Selso Ananias Sitoe3,
Caio Rosas Moreira1 , Sophia Jowett4 and Lenamar Fiorese1
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) for coaches. Subjects were 173 coaches (20–65 years old) from both sexes,
from individual and team sports, ranging from amateur to national level; the instruments were the Coach version of
CART-Q translated and adapted to Portuguese and the Athletic Satisfaction Scale adapted for coaches. Data analysis
consisted of confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability), concurrent
validity (Spearman correlation), and temporal stability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). Confirmatory factor
analysis revealed a model with 11 items presenting adequate fit (�2/df¼ 2.68; comparative fit index¼ 0.92; goodness-
of-fit index¼ 0.91; Tucker–Lewis index¼ 0.90; root mean square error of approximation¼ 0.10) and the existence of a
second-order factor (coach–athlete relationship). The scale has shown satisfactory internal consistency (composite
reliability> 0.70 and a> 0.70). Concurrent validity assessment presented significant relationships (r> 0.40) with all
coach satisfaction variables and temporal stability after 15 days was also adequate (0.65< ICC< 0.88). It was concluded
that the Brazilian version of the CART-Q Coach is adequate to assess coaches’ perception regarding the relationship with
their athletes.
Keywords
Brazilian coach, coach, coach–athlete relationship, interpersonal relationship, psychometrics
Introduction
Social relationships are essential in the context of com-
petitive sports, affecting both professional and personal
excellence of athletes and coaches.1,2 Studies have
shown that the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of
coaches and athletes3,4 are reflected upon intra- and
interpersonal variables such as athletic satisfaction,
motivation, passion, collective efficacy, and group
cohesion.1,2
Traditionally, interpersonal relationships are studied
according to the coach’s leadership, as based on the
Multidimensional Model of Sport Leadership.5 Such
model states that coach’s behavior is influenced by
antecedents (personal, member, and situational charac-
teristics) and directly influences performance, satisfac-
tion, and motivation of the team and its members.
However, advances in these studies indicate the
importance of studying the coach–athlete relationship
dynamics in a bidirectional way, with active participa-
tion from both athletes and coaches, and requiring the
consideration of nonobservational (cognition and
affect) as well as behavioral factors.2,6,7
1Physical Education Department, Universidade Estadual de Maringá,
Maringá-PR, Brazil
2Physical Education Department, Universidade Federal do Vale do São
Francisco, Petrolina-PE, Brazil
3Direcção de Educação e Cultura da Cidade de Maputo, Maputo,
Mozambique
4School of Sport, Exercise and Health Science, Loughborough University,
Loughborough-Leicestershire, UK
Corresponding author:
Andressa Ribeiro Contreira, Physical Education Department,
Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Colombo Avenue, 5790, 87020-900
Maringá-PR, Brazil.
Email: andressacontreira@gmail.com
International Journal of Sports Science
& Coaching
0(0) 1–9
! The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1747954119832715
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-3568
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119832715
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1747954119832715&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-03-04
In order to meet such demands, the 3þ 1Cs
Model was developed1,8,9 encompassing affective
(Closeness), cognitive (Commitment), and behavioral
(Complementarity) aspects grounding the relationship
between two people. In this perspective, factors such as
trust, affect, cooperation, and the intention to preserve
the relationship are indicatives of its quality, either
inside or outside the sport environment, while detach-
ment, discord, and lack of commitment will implicate in
interpersonal conflicts, dissatisfaction, or loss of inter-
est.2 Thus, knowledge of the established relationships
within the context of sport may contribute to more
effective actions during training and competition,
aiming for harmonious environments promoting both
athletes’ and coaches’ motivation and satisfaction, thus
contributing to their performance and psychological
well-being.8–10
In this sense, we notice the importance of applying
and observing these aspects in the reality of Brazilian
coaches and athletes from different competitive levels.
Yet, there are some gaps limiting such kind of investi-
gation, such as the absence of an instrument measure-
ment tool to assess the coach–athlete relationship
according to the coach’s perspective in Brazil. The
lack of instruments to the Brazilian sport context is
one of the factors hindering scientific development
and professional work in the area, especially in the
field of sport psychology, as the available instruments
have foreign origin and cannot be directly used.11,12
Coach–athlete relationship has been studied as a
universal construct through the Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q), an instrument
originally developed from the perspective of British and
Greek coaches and athletes.9,13 CART-Q’s psychomet-
ric properties have been widely tested throughout the
world, supporting the multidimensional nature of the
instrument through its three distinct, yet connected,
dimensions of closeness, commitment, and complemen-
tarity, addressing the emotional, cognitive, and behav-
ioral elements of the 3þ 1Cs Model.8 So far, the
psychometric properties of this instrument were verified
in Belgian coaches,14,15 Iranian coaches,16 Chinese
coach and athletes,17,18 Turkish coaches and athletes,19
and Polish coaches.20 Some of these studies have
observed significant variations for the latent construct
values between countries15 and, therefore, indicate the
need of performing all of the psychometric procedures
with the goal of assessing how effective the question-
naire is, for the context that is intended to be studied.
In Brazil, the athlete version of CART-Q has been
recently published,21 presenting satisfactory psycho-
metric properties in the factorial validity and reliability.
Despite the scale’s relevance for the study of athletes,
it is still necessary to study coaches, so that future stu-
dies could investigate the coach–athlete relationship
according to the perspective of both,2,14,18 since such
relationship should be studied in a bidirectional per-
spective. Nevertheless, the present study aimed to
analyze the psychometric properties of the CART-Q
for coaches, performing a transcultural adaptation,
assessing content validity for Portuguese, and analyzing
the factorial construct, internal consistency, concurrent
validity and temporal stability of this instrument for
Brazilian coaches.
Methods
Procedures
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee in
Human Research of the State University of Maringá
(opinion 1.324.411/2015). After adapting and translat-
ing the questionnaire, coaches from different sports and
competitive levels were invited to voluntarily partici-
pate, being informed about the confidentiality of all
research data. A day was scheduled with those who
agreed to participate, in order to collect data through
the questionnaires. After signing the Free Consent
Term, research was carried in the training facilities
accompanied by the researcher. Study has been con-
ducted in three different data collections: the first one
for a pilot study,the second one for factorial analysis
and internal consistency, and the third time for concur-
rent validity and temporal stability, with CART-
Q-Coach being answered once again after 15 days
(test and retest).
Participants
The pilot study was conduct with 20 coaches from team
and individual sports to assess the instrument’s content
and language coherence, showing that there was no
need for further changes or corrections. The second
study subjects were 130 coaches (21–63 years old),
being 108 males and 22 females, from team (53.8%)
and individual (46.2%) sports. These sports include
futsal (29), basketball (19), swimming (14), cycling
(11), football (9), table tennis (9), volleyball (7), field
tennis (7), judo (7), handball (6), athletics (6), rhythmic
gymnastics (3), and karate and taekwondo (3). Sample
size was determined based on the recommendation of at
least 10 participants for each item of the instrument
being validated.22,23 Thus, sample size was in agreement
with other CART-Q Coach studies9,14 as well as the
original scale’s development study.13
Inclusion criteria were (1) being working as coach,
(2) having over three months of relationship with the
athlete, and (3) voluntary participation after reading
and signing an Informed Consent Term, meeting all
of the ethical commitments. Time of relationship with
2 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
athletes ranged from 4 months to 20 years, and all com-
petitive levels were represented (regional 11.5%; state
30.8%; and national 33.1%; the other 24.6% coaches
did not inform their competitive levels) as adopted
and suggested by previous validation studies of this
instrument.9,13,24
The last sample (concurrent validity and temporal
stability) consisting of 43 coaches also took part in
the study, from both sexes and with ages between 20
and 65 years. These were intentionally and nonprob-
abilistically selected to answer to the CART-Q Coach
and the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ),25 in
its validated version to Portuguese.26 Athletic satisfac-
tion was selected for external validity due to its positive
relation with coach–athlete relationship.27–29 All 43
coaches were invited to answer the CART-Q Coach
after 15 days of their initial participation, as a way to
evaluate test–retest reliability,22 from which 35 coaches
participated.
As reported in the literature, the minimum of 30
participants is required to conduct the statistical pro-
cedures of temporal stability.22
Instruments
Coach–athlete relationship. After the authors of the ori-
ginal instrument have authorized the scale’s validation,
the CART-Q (CART-Q Coach Version)9 was used to
evaluate the coach’s perception of his/her relationship
with his/her athlete. The original scale is composed of
11 items divided in three dimensions: closeness—affect-
ive dimension (items 3, 5, 8, and 9); commit-
ment—cognitive dimension (items 1, 2, and 6), and
complementarity—behavioral dimension (items 4, 7,
10, and 11). Items are answered in a Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 to 7 points representing ‘‘totally dis-
agree’’ (1) to ‘‘totally agree’’ (7). The score for each
dimension is obtained from the arithmetic mean of its
respective items, and higher scores indicate a better
relationship quality.
In order to preserve the quality and reliability of the
original instrument in English, a double reverse trans-
lation of the scale was performed involving four bilin-
gual translators, six PhDs in Sport Psychology, and a
coach graduated in Physical Education, who voluntar-
ily agreed to participate in the CART-Q-Coach valid-
ation process. The double reverse translation was
performed by two bilingual translators having
Portuguese as mother language, who independently
translated the questionnaire from English to
Portuguese. Then, other two independent translators
performed the reverse translation (backtranslation)
from Portuguese to English.23 The versions in
English, Portuguese along with the original instrument
were compared and analyzed by a specialists’
committee, following literature guidelines.30
Questions’ semantics was discussed, and changes were
made in order to improve comprehension by the target
populations, for example, in item 4 ‘‘Quando eu treino
meu atleta, eu estou à vontade’’ that was changed to
‘‘Quando eu treino meu atleta, eu me sinto à vontade’’
(Original—When I coach my athlete, I am at ease;
adapted—When I coach my athlete, I feel at ease).
The final version of the instrument is presented in
Table 1.
Language clarity, practical relevance, and content
validity were analyzed by the specialists in a Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 to 5 points, describing each
item from ‘‘very low clarity/relevance’’ (1) to ‘‘very high
clarity/relevance’’ (5) as suggested by the literature.30
Content validity coefficient (CVC) was used to assess
clarity of the language, practical relevance, and content
validity, adopting high acceptable indices of
CVC> 0.80.31 Kappa coefficient was used to analyze
the agreement between judges in the analysis of items
and dimensions.32
All CART-Q-Coach dimensions have shown
CVC> 0.80, indicating items clarity for the Brazilian
Portuguese language, as well as relevance for usage in
the Brazilian context of sports. As for the classification
of each item in its respective dimension (closeness, com-
mitment, and complementarity), judges’ evaluation
Table 1. Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire/coach
version (Portuguese and English version).
Closeness
3. Eu gosto do meu atleta (I like my athlete).
5. Eu confio no meu atleta (I trust my athlete).
8. Eu respeito meu atleta (I respect my athlete).
9. Eu aprecio os sacrifı́cios do meu atleta a fim de melhorar seu
desempenho (I appreciate my athlete’s sacrifices in order to
improve performance).
Commitment
1. Eu sou próximo ao meu atleta (I am close to my athlete).
2. Eu sou comprometido com meu atleta (I am committed to
my athlete).
6. Eu acho que minha carreira como treinador é promissora
com meu atleta (I feel that my coaching carrer is promising
with my athlete).
Complementarity
4. Quando eu treino meu atleta, eu me sinto à vontade (When
I coach my athlete, I am at ease).
7. Quando eu treino meu atleta, eu sou suscetı́vel aos seus
esforços (When I coach my athlete, I am responsive to his/
her efforts).
10. Quando eu treino meu atleta, eu estou pronto para fazer o
melhor (When I coach my athlete, I am ready to do my
best).
11. Quando eu treino meu atleta, eu adoto uma postura ami-
gável (When I coach my athlete, I adopt a friendly stance).
Contreira et al. 3
presented satisfactory agreement (Kappa coefficient
between 0.40 and 0.75) according to literature
recommendations.31,32
Satisfaction. Coach’s athletic satisfaction was assessed
through the ASQ,25 validated to Portuguese by
Borrego et al.26 The original ASQ has 53 items to iden-
tify athletes’ satisfaction and is divided in 14 dimen-
sions, questions are answered in a Likert-type scale of
7 points (1 ‘‘not at all satisfied’’ to 7 ‘‘extremely satis-
fied’’). However, the authors of the original CART-Q
have performed an adaptation of the ASQ to be used
with coaches, having only three dimensions (training-
instruction, individual performance, and personal
treatment), which presented a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.74 till 0.90.28,29
Due to this instrument being originally validated for
athletes, ASQ went through the process of language
adequacy by content validation for its later use with
coaches. Thus, the questionnaire had its language clar-
ity and practical relevance evaluated by three PhDs in
the field of Physical Education (experienced in the
Sport Psychology area), presenting an acceptable total
content validity coefficient (CVCt¼ 0.92).31 For the
training-instruction, individual performance and per-
sonal treatment dimensions, CVCs ranged between
0.95 and 0.96. Scale’s general internal reliability index
was a¼ 0.80, showing values above the recommended
cut point.33 These results indicate the scale’slanguage
clarity as well as its practical relevance to assess satis-
faction in sport coaches. Analyzing the coach-adapted
version of this scale through confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) has presented acceptable fit
(�2(32)¼ 98.184; p¼ 0.001; �2/df¼ 3.068; comparative
fit index (CFI)¼ 0.92; goodness-of-fit index (GFI)¼
0.90; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI)¼ 0.90; root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA)¼ 0.09;
P(RMSEA< 0.05)¼ 0.001).
Data analysis
Statistical procedures were performed on SPSS v22 and
AMOS v20. Sample characteristics were presented
through descriptive statistics for continuous data
(mean and standard deviation) and frequency and per-
centage for categorical data.
Psychometric properties were tested through CFA,
since the latent structure of CART-Q-Coach is pre-
sented in a tridimensional concept (three latent factors:
closeness, commitment, and complementarity).9,14,15
Initially, the Mahalanobis squared distance (D2) was
used to test for outliers. All of the instrument’s items
presented an asymmetrical pattern, as skewness
(ISkI< 3.0) and kurtosis (IKuI< 10) values were sig-
nificant.34 Multivariate normality coefficient has also
indicated the moderately abnormal distribution of the
data33 However, since the nonnormality of data distri-
bution was moderate, we still opted for the maximum
likelihood method of estimation.34
Model fit was assessed through the following indices:
chi-square (�2 and p value), GFI> 0.90, RMSEA<
0.08, 90% confidence interval (CI), normalized fit
index> 0.90, TLI> 0.90, adjusted goodness-of-fit
index> 0.90, normalized chi-square (�2/df, recom-
mended between 1.0 and 3.0), CFI> 0.90, Akaike
information criteria, Bayes information criteria, and
expected cross-validation index which lower values pre-
sent better parsimony.33,35
Convergent validity was assessed by the average
variance extracted (AVE) with values near 0.50
indicating adequate validity.33 Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability (CR) were used to verify general
and each item’s internal consistency. CR was assessed
using factor loading values obtained from CFA,
adopting values >0.70 as satisfactory.22 Concurrent
validity was measured by Spearman correlation,
identifying the relationships between CART-Q and
ASQ dimensions (p< 0.05). Temporal stability was
tested using the intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC> 0.70).36
Results
Psychometric properties
The initial model tested through CFA was identical to
the measurement model used in the original version of
the instrument.9,24 Verifying item’s individual reliability
through factor loadings (FLs) indicated that, in the ini-
tial model (M1), almost all of the 11 items were satu-
rated in their respective factors with values higher than
0.50 (p< 0.001), except for item 11 (Portuguese:
‘‘quando eu treino meu atleta, eu adoto uma postura
amigável’’—English ‘‘when I coach my athlete I adopt
a friendly stance’’) which has shown FL¼ 0.38.
Although this item has presented FL< 0.50, we opted
to keep it in the model since factor loadings over 0.30
are considered relevant, as this is the minimum value
for interpretation in the model fit analysis.33
The M1, however, did not present an acceptable fit
(Table 2). Modification indices suggested covariances
between some items’ measurement errors, thus, three
interactions between measurement errors were added
to the model, which was once again tested through
CFA.
The modified model (M2) presented covariance
between the errors of items 3 and 5, 3 and 9, and 8
and 9 of the closeness dimension. Such error correl-
ations were considered weak (r< 0.40), moreover, for
being between items of the same factor, theory and fit
4 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
of the model were not compromised. Most of the indi-
ces for M2 indicated satisfactory fit (Table 2).
In the standardized parameters estimation, M2’s fac-
torial saturations (k) have shown moderate to strong
values that ranged between 0.38 and 0.78, with only
item 11 not presenting a value >0.50. Bootstrap repli-
cations (p< 0.001) and confidence interval (95% CI)
indicated the stability of the factorial estimations and
model fit for the data. Besides, high correlations
(>0.70) were found between the three first-order factors
(closeness, commitment, and complementarity), indi-
cating the existence of a second-order factor (Coach–
Athlete Relationship), which has also been revealed in
other international studies validating this instrument to
other cultures.14,15,18,19
The fit indices for the second-order model (M3)
were identical or above those from M2 (Table 2),
supporting such hierarchical model. Factor loadings
from the first-order to the second-order factor
(Coach–Athlete relationship) were also substan-
tially high (closeness¼ 0.99; commitment¼ 0.97;
complementarity¼ 0.94) and significant (p< 0.001)
(Figure 1).
After analyzing the first- and second-order model’s
factorial structure, the Brazilian version of the
CART-Q-Coach has maintained the same structure as
proposed by the original version, presenting the fol-
lowing distribution: (1) Closeness (items 3, 5, 8, and
9); (2) Commitment (items 1, 2, and 6); and
(3) Complementarity (Items 4, 7, 10, and 11).
Descriptive statistics, internal and convergent validity
Coaches have perceived a good quality of relationship
with their athletes (Table 3). Items’ means varied
between 5.63� 1.29 and 6.70� 0.66, with higher
values for item 1 (Portuguese: ‘‘Eu sou próximo do
meu atleta’’; English: ‘‘I feel close to my athlete’’).
General internal consistency index for the CART-Q-
Coach was a¼ 0.86, also presenting values of a> 0.70
for all dimensions (Table 3), which are considered as
adequate.33
The AVE values were closeness¼ 0.47; commit-
ment¼ 0.49; and complementarity¼ 0.41. Only the
complementarity factor did not present a value that
was close to the reference (>0.50).33,36 Considered all
Figure 1. Final structural model of the CART-Q Coach version in the Brazilian sport context.
Table 2. Model fit indices for CART-Q Coach version for the Brazilian context.
�2 df p �2/df RMSEA (90% CI) GFI TLI NFI CFI AIC BIC ECVI
Original model (M1) 141.45 41 0.001 3.14 0.11 [0.10–0.13] 0.87 0.80 0.88 0.87 191.45 263.13 1.52
Modified model (M2) 102.28 38 0.001 2.69 0.10 [0.08–0.11] 0.90 0.88 0.89 0.91 158.28 238.57 1.27
Second order (M3) 102.27 38 0.001 2.68 0.10 [0.08–0.11] 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.92 158.28 238.57 1.27
Note: �2: Chi-square; df: degrees of freedom; �2/gl: normalized chi-square; GFI: goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approxi-
mation; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; NFI: normalized fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; AIC: Akaike information criteria; BIC: Bayes information criteria;
ECVI: expected cross-validation index; CI: confidence interval.
Contreira et al. 5
together, the results support the second-order model’s
convergent validity with 11 items (M2). CR values were
also satisfactory (CR> 0.70).
Concurrent validity and temporal stability
The dimensions of the CART-Q Coach presented sig-
nificant and moderate-to-high correlations with most
dimensions of coach satisfaction (closeness—training-
instruction r¼ 0.61; closeness—individual performance
r¼ 0.40; closeness—personal treatment r¼ 0.78; com-
mitment—training-instruction r¼ 0.65; commitment—
personal treatment r¼ 0.48; complementarity—
training-instruction r¼ 0.54; complementarity—per-
sonal treatment r¼ 0.45), indicating the convergent val-
idity of the CART-Q-Coach and ASQ.
The ICC confirmed the instrument’s temporal stabil-
ity. The majority of items have presented near-reference
values ranging from 0.65 to 0.88. For being a multidi-
mensional instrument, the ICC was also assessed for
the closeness (0.61), commitment (0.81), and comple-
mentarity (0.73) dimensions, which also supported its
temporal stability.
Discussion
The present study aimed to analyze the psychometric
properties of the Brazilian version of the CART-Q for
Coaches (CART-Q Coach), performing the adaptation
and contentvalidity of the instrument for the
Portuguese language, verifying its internal consistency,
construct validity and assessing both concurrent valid-
ity and temporal stability for Brazilian coaches. The
instrument presented satisfactory results for content
validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and
temporal stability, indicating its validity and trust-
worthiness for assessing the coach–athlete relationship
as according to the coach’s perspective. This is the first
study to perform such analysis for the Brazilian sport
context, highlighting its contribution to the scientific
knowledge in this area, as well as the applicability of
the scale. Therefore, it will allow studying the levels of
closeness, commitment, and complementarity between
a coach and his/her athletes according to the
perspective of both sides (CART-Q Athlete version,
see Vieira et al.21), which can contribute to the search
for optimal team functioning in sports throughout
training and competitions.
In general, the instrument’s original 11-item struc-
ture with three dimensions (closeness, commitment,
and complementarity) was maintained, so as in the val-
idation studies performed in other cultures.9,14,15,18,19
Moreover, the results indicate that the CART-Q
assesses the general content of the coach–athlete rela-
tionship, which encompasses the feelings, thoughts, and
behaviors of these individuals involved in the sport.18
Besides corroborating with previous studies, this new
CART-Q investigation also advances by presenting the
temporal stability analysis, which was not reported in
the precedent validation studies from other countries.
Two measurement model structures were tested,
grounded in the ‘‘3þ 1Cs’’ Model.1 According to the
CFA (Table 2), both the first-order (M2) and second-
order (M3) models were acceptable. These results are
similar to those found for this instrument in Greek,13
British,9 Belgian,14 Turkish,19 and Chinese cultures.18
Verifying the factorial solutions all of the items satu-
rated in their respective factors, with the exception of
item 11 (complementarity dimension), however, it was
opted to keep this item in the model. Such evidence was
also found in the study with Chinese athletes and coa-
ches18 where items 4 and 11, from the same dimension,
presented low factor loadings. For measuring the
cooperation and interaction behaviors of coaches and
athletes, the cultural context has to be taken in consid-
eration, since some coaches naturally present higher pre-
dominance of authority and athletes present themselves
as more submissive, as observed in Chinese sports13,15
indicates the need for continuous psychometric evalu-
ations of this instrument in different cultures.
Despite the decision to maintain item 11, fit indices
for M1 presented values that were lower than recom-
mended, along with high RMSEA values. In the ori-
ginal validation study,9 the high RMSEA values were
justified by the small sample size, which tends to present
problems of over-rejection of the true populational
models. Other validation studies of the CART-
Q-Coach have also presented RMSEA values that
were near the upper limit suggested by the literature
(0.5<RMSEA< 0.10), such as the second order
model (M3) in the present study.
The modification indices have suggested the existence
of covariances between the errors of some of the items in
the closeness dimension to better fit the model. Such
aspect has also been observed in the study with
Belgian coaches,14 showing a better fit with such covari-
ance between errors of the same dimension. In this case,
the authors inferred that the respect for athletes and
appreciation for their sacrifices have close and connected
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and internal consistency of the
CART-Q Coach in the Brazilian sport context.
Mean SD a CR
Closeness 6.52 0.69 0.79 0.78
Commitment 5.92 0.91 0.70 0.73
Complementarity 6.36 0.66 0.77 0.71
Note: a: Cronbach’s alpha; CR: composite reliability; SD: standard
deviation.
6 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
meanings for Belgian coaches. These modifications for
improvement in the model structure were also observed
in the study that assessed the psychometric properties of
the athlete version of CART-Q in Brazil,21 which found
covariances between items in the closeness dimension.
Such results can be related to the cultural characteristics
of the relationship between people. Balduck and
Jowett14 suggest a new crossed-validation with a coach
sample to identify if these re-specifications are character-
istic of the overall Belgian context, a recommendation
that is also valid for the present study.
The general and dimension-specific internal consist-
ency indices were high (a> 0.70).33,36 Furthermore, all
of the CR values were above the recommendations,
showing the internal consistency of this version of
the CART-Q-Coach, also agreeing with previous
works.9,14,18 Complementarity presented low AVE
value (<0.50), while closeness and commitment have
shown near-acceptable values. However, such results
were already expected, since these factors are assessing
similar constructs.33,36
Concurrent validity analysis of the CART-Q Coach
presented positive moderate-to-high correlations with
ASQ’s training-instruction, personal treatment, and
individual performance dimensions. Such finding is in
agreement with other studies that also reported signifi-
cant correlations between the dimensions of these
instruments (0.23< r< 0.44),28,29 highlighting them as
relevant for the study of coach–athlete relationship,
since satisfaction is the result of success and effective-
ness in the experiences and relationships of a coach and
his/her athletes.
The values of ICC confirmed the temporal stability
of the instrument and the majority of items have pre-
sented values that were either close or above the refer-
ence ones, not presenting any negative correlations
between items and dimensions.36 ICC for each of the
three dimensions has indicated moderate temporal sta-
bility (ICC> 0.60) for the Brazilian version of the
CART-Q-Coach. When checking other validation stu-
dies of this instrument for other cultures,9,14,15,18,19 it
was noticed that this is the first study to perform such
analysis, indicating the present robust criteria for the
scale validation.
Conclusions
This study is a pioneer in the evaluation of the psycho-
metric properties of the CART-Q for Brazilian sport
coaches, also contributing to the general factorial struc-
ture and usage of this scale throughout the globe. Our
results have shown that the Brazilian version of the
CART-Q Coach has adequate cultural validation,
internal consistency, factorial validity, concurrent val-
idity, and temporal stability. Therefore, the present
instrument is reliable for assessing the coach’s perspec-
tive of the relationship with athletes.
In this sense, the results are relevant for coaches and
athletes’ practices, since good interpersonal relationships
in sports are positive for the performance and well-being
of both. Sport psychologists can benefit from such scale
and the discussed knowledge to develop studies and
interventions to foster positive social relationships
in sports. Thus, the bidirectional assessment of
the coach–athlete relationship becomes possible in the
national Brazilian context, since both the athlete and
coach versions of this instrument are validated and avail-
able for future studies and practical application.
Despite the contributions, limitations must be con-
sidered. There was a much higher prevalence of male
coaches as compared to females in the present sample,
which can show a male predominance in the coaching
work in Brazil, regardless of the sport. However, such
sample characteristic has also been observed in the valid-
ation studies for other countries, which makes it not clear,
according to the authors, if the evidences are gender-
biased.14 Future studies can focus on examining CART-
Q’s invariance according to sex as well as the difference inthe relationship perception between male and female coa-
ches with their athletes. Furthermore, verifying the pos-
sible differences between coaches and athletes of the
opposite sex can also provide interesting results, since
there could be peculiarities in these relationships.
Another limitation was the difficulty in finding a
large number of coaches to take part in the research.
Therefore, our sample was limited, although meeting
the minimum criteria for psychometric analysis of a
questionnaire, and being in agreement with the other
studies that validated the CART-Q for coaches. A last
limitation was the concurrent evaluation in relation to
the coach’s satisfaction. Although this is the first study
to assess the psychometric properties of CART-Q-
Coach for Brazil, few questionnaires are specifically
intended for coaches. Therefore, future studies should
adapt and even develop other psychometric scales to
assess an array of different psychological variables in
coaches, aiming to verify their relations in the context
of sports in a more precise way.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The authors received financial support from the
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nı́vel
Superior for the research.
Contreira et al. 7
ORCID iD
Caio RosasMoreira http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-3568
References
1. Jowett S and Poczwardowski A. Understanding the
coach-athlete relationship. In: Jowett S and Lavalee D
(eds) Social psychology in sport. Champaign: Human
Kinetics, 2007, pp.3–14.
2. Jowett S and Shanmugam V. Relational coaching in
sport: its psychological underpinnings and practical
effectiveness. In: Schinke R, McGannon KR and Smith
B (eds) Routledge international handbook of sport psych-
ology. Londres: Routledge, 2016, pp.471–484.
3. Lafrenière MAK, Jowett S, Vallerand RJ, et al. Passion
for coaching and the quality of the coach-athlete relation-
ship: the mediating role of coaching behaviors. Psychol
Sport Exercise 2011; 12: 144–152.
4. Davis L, Jowett S and Lafreniére MK. An attachment
theory perspective in the examination of relational pro-
cesses associated with coach-athlete dyads. J Sport Exerc
Psycho 2013; 35(2): 156–167.
5. Chelladurai P and Saleh SD. Preferred leadership in
sport. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1978; 3: 85–97.
6. Jowett S and Cockerill IM. Incompatibility in the coach–
athlete relationship. In: Cockerill IM (ed.) Solutions in
sport psychology. London: Thomson Learning, 2002,
pp.16–31.
7. Hampson R and Jowett S. Effects of coach leadership
and coach–athlete relationship on collective efficacy.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24(2): 454–460.
8. Jowett S. Interdependence analysis and the 3þ 1Cs in the
coach-athlete relationship. In: Jowett S and Lavalee D
(eds) Social Psychology in Sport. Champaign: Human
Kinetics, 2007, pp.15–27.
9. Jowett S and Ntoumanis N. The Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): development
and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004;
14(4): 245–257.
10. Nicholls AR, Levy AR, Jones L, et al. Committed rela-
tionships and enhanced threat levels: perceptions of
coach behavior, the coach–athlete relationship, stress
appraisals, and coping among athletes. Int J Sports Sci
Coach 2016; 11(1): 16–26.
11. Vieira LF, Brandão MRF, Nascimento Jr JRA, et al.
Desafios da avaliação psicológica em jogos desportivos
coletivos. In: Nascimento JV, Ramos V and Tavares F
(eds) Jogos desportivos: formação e investigação. 4th ed.
Florianópolis: UDESC, 2013, pp.247–266 (Coleção
Temas em Movimento).
12. Pasqualli L. Validade dos Testes Psicológicos: Será
Possı́vel Reencontrar o Caminho?. Psicologia: Teoria e
Pesquisa 2007; 23: 99–107.
13. Jowett S and Ntoumanis N. The Greek Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART-Q): Scale develop-
ment and validation. Inter J Sport Psychol 2003; 34:
101–124.
14. Balduck AL and Jowett S. Psychometric properties of the
Belgian coach version of the Coach–Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q). Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010;
20(5): 779–786.
15. Yang SX and Jowett S. Psychometric properties of the
Coach-Athlete Relationships Questionnaire (CART-Q)
in seven countries. Psychol Sport Exerc 2012; 13(1):
36–43.
16. Tojari F, Soheili B and Manouchehri J. Validation of an
instrument for measuring coach-athlete relationship in
Iranian sport leagues. Adv Environ Biol 2013; 7(14):
4667–4670.
17. Yang SX and Jowett S. An examination of the psycho-
metric properties of the Chinese Coach-Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q). Int J Coach Sci
2010; 4: 73–89.
18. Yang SX and Jowett S. The psychometric properties of
the short and long versions of the Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci
2013; 17(4): 281–294.
19. Altintas� A, Çetinkalp ZK and As� çi F. Hülya. Antrenör-
sporcu ilis� kisinin değerlendirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalis�masi. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi 2012; 23(3): 119–128.
20. Michalak A and Poczwardowski A. Kwestionariusz do
badania relacji trener-zawodnik (CART-Q): polska adap-
tacja (PlCART-Q). Testy Psychologicz New Praktyce I
Badaniach 2015; 1(1): 62–75.
21. Vieira LF, Nascimento Jr JRA, Pujals C, et al. Cross-
cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the
Brazilian Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire
(CART-Q)-Athlete Version. Rev Bras Cineantropom
Desempenho Hum 2015; 17(6): 635–649.
22. Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos
teóricos, softwares e aplicações. Portugal: Report
Number, 2010.
23. Pasquali L. Instrumentação psicológica: fundamentos e
práticas. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2010.
24. Jowett S. Validating coach-athlete relationship measures
with the nomological network.Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci
2009; 13(1): 34–51.
25. Riemer HA and Chelladurai P. Development of
the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire(ASQ). J Sport
Exercise Psych 1998; 20(2): 127–156.
26. Borrego CMC, Leitão JC, Alves J, et al. Análise confir-
matória do questionário de satisfação do atleta- versão
portuguesa. Psicologia: reflexão e crı́tica 2011; 23(1):
110–120.
27. Jowett S and Don Carolis G. The coach-athlete relation-
ship and perceived satisfaction in team sports(Abstract).
XIth European Congress of Sport Psychology Proceedings.
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003, pp. 83–84.
28. Jowett S. Moderators and mediators of the association
between the coach–athlete relationship and physical self-
concept. Inter J Coach Sci 2008; 2(1): 43–62.
29. Lorimer R. Coaches’ satisfaction with their athletic part-
nerships. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 3(2): 55–64.
30. Cassepp-Borges V, Balbinotti MAA and Teodoro MLM.
Tradução e validação de conteúdo: uma proposta para a
adaptação de instrumentos. In: Pasquali L (ed.)
Instrumentação Psicológica. Porto Alegre: Artmed,
2010, pp.506–520.
8 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-3568
31. Hernández-Nieto RA. Contribuciones al análisis
estadı́stico. Mérida: Universidad de Los Andes/
IESINFO, 2002.
32. Landis R and Koch GG. The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1):
159–174.
33. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, et al. Multivariate data ana-
lysis. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2009.
34. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012.
35. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
basic, concepts, applications, and programming. Trenton:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2010.
36. Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Contreira et al. 9