The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

1

Running head: The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART – Q): Scale Construction and Validation

Sophia Jowett Staffordshire University School of Health

Nikos Ntoumanis The University of Birmingham School of Sport and Exercise Sciences

Jowett, S & Ntoumanis, N. (2003) The Greek Coach - Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART-Q): Scale development and validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 101-124.

Date of submission: 21st December 2001 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sophia Jowett, PhD, School of Health, Staffordshire University, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2 DF, United Kingdom. Tel.:+44 1782 294292 Fax: +44 1782 294019 Email: [email protected]

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

2

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART – Q): Scale Construction and Validation

Paper submitted for publication in the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology Date of submission: 21st December 2001

Abstract In view of the growing interest in the influence of cultural issues pertaining to psychological assessment, this article presents a study that aimed to develop a culturally specific scale for assessing the interpersonal relationships established between Greek coaches and their athletes.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

3

Two studies were carried out to assess content, criterion and construct validity, as well as internal consistency, of the Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART – Q). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated the multidimensional nature of the GrCART-Q, which was underlined by the latent factors of Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity. In addition, the predictive validity of the GrCART - Q was evidenced through the associations of the latent factors with the criterion variable of interpersonal satisfaction. This study was conducted in parallel with Jowett and Ntoumanis’ (2001) study so that the CART-Q was validated employing a sample of Greek and British coaches and athletes respectively. Taking both studies together, the generated findings reveal subtle differences; these differences are discussed in terms of the collectivism/individualism framework.

Key words: coach-athlete relationship, closeness, commitment, complementarity, validation, culture

Coaches, parents, partners, and friends represent the main interpersonal network which becomes, in varying degrees, a contributing factor to athletes’ sport experience (Weiss, 2001). The coach particularly is a significant person whose presence, actions and speech are instrumental in the athlete’s physical and psychosocial development (Jowett, 2001; Jowett &

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

4

Cockerill, in press-a; Martens, 1997; Smith & Smoll, 1996). Hemery’s (1986) interviews with some of the greatest athletes in the world revealed that 11% of them were not sure if they could have reached the level they had without their coach, 18% said that they could have reached the top, but it would have taken much longer, and finally 68% reported that they simply could not have made it without the support they received from their coach. Evidently, the coach - athlete relationship that is formed during the coaching process, often serves as a suitable psychological climate in which the coach and the athlete pursuit their goals in a constructive and satisfying way. Such functional relationships, on one hand, “offer[s] exciting possibilities for the development of creative, adaptive, and autonomous persons” (Rogers, 1961, p. 38), and, on the other, provide a greater chance to achieve performance accomplishments at the highest level (Jowett & Cockerill, in press-b). The nature of the relationships people form with parents, partners, teachers, sports coaches, therapists, and friends, is complex and dynamic (Hinde, 1997; Kiesler, 1997; Wylleman, 2000). In sport psychology, coaches’ and athletes’ interpersonal dynamics have recently been captured from a relationship perspective (e.g., Jowett & Meek, 2000). This perspective has broadly conceptualised the coach – athlete relationship as the situation in which the coach’s and the athlete’s emotions, thoughts and behaviors are interconnected (cf. Kelley et al., 1983). A series of qualitative case studies have been conducted since, in order to discern coaches’ and athletes’ affective, cognitive and behavioral relational aspects (e.g., Jowett, 2001; Jowett & Cockerill, in press-b; Jowett & Meek, 2000; Jowett & Pearce, 2001) through the interpersonal constructs of Closeness (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989), Coorientation (Newcomb, 1953) and Complementarity (Kiesler, 1997) respectively. Overall, the findings have revealed that Closeness (coaches’ and athletes’ affective ties), Co-orientation (coaches’ and athletes’ shared knowledge and understanding), and Complementarity (coaches’ and athletes’ co-operative acts of interaction during training) are salient components of the coach – athlete relationship.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

5

Subsequently, Jowett and Ntoumanis (2001) based on the information obtained by the aforementioned qualitative case studies, developed and validated the Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART – Q). The validation of the CART – Q included item analysis, as well as exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses employing two independent British samples. The factor analyses indicated the emergence of Closeness and Complementarity as clearly identifiable components. However, Co-orientation was eliminated during item and exploratory factor analyses. More specifically, exploratory factor analysis revealed a “new” component. Following a careful examination, the emerged component was labelled Commitment (cf. Rosenblatt, 1977); it was broadly defined as "coaches and athletes’ intention to maintain their athletic relationship" (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001, pp. 15-16). In essence, Commitment represent the cognitive aspect, whereas Closeness and Complementarity represent the affective and behavioral aspects respectively of the coach – athlete relationship (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001). The need to study and understand culture in psychology has been frequently documented (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Duda & Hayashi, 1998; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001; Si & Chung, 2001; Sue & Sue, 1987). In psychology research, culture has often been viewed as a determinant of behavior (Triandis, 1996). Indeed, evidence from cross-cultural research indicates that culture affects, for example, the level of intimacy and self-disclosure (Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989), the provision of help (Miller, 1994), social loafing (Earley, 1989) and the manner in which depression is experienced (Marsella, 1980). Furthermore, in sport psychology literature there are several studies that have explored constructs such as, social physique anxiety and motivation from a cross-cultural perspective (e.g., Isogai, Brewer, Cornelius, Komiya, Tokunaga, Tokushima, 2001; Kolt et al., 1999; Li, Harmer, Chi, & Vongjaturapat, 1996). Recently, Vergeer (2000) stated that culture influences the meaning, purpose, and importance people attach to their relationships and proposed to study the influence of culture

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

6

in interpersonal relationships in sport. Thus, in this study a "parallel research" design (Sue & Sue, 1987, p. 485) and the individualism/collectivism framework (Triandis, 1995) are utilized in order to address the concept of the coach – athlete relationship from a cultural perspective. The utilization of a parallel research design is useful because “the framework or perspective from one cultural group is not imposed on another” (Sue & Sue, 1987, p. 485). In effect, in this design (a) an etic construct or concept that may have universal applications is identified, (b) emic means for measuring the construct for each culture are developed and validated, and (c) cross-cultural comparisons from the emically (culturally-specific) defined etic (universal) construct are made (Hui & Triandis, 1985). Betancourt and Lopez (1993) ascertained that such an approach where one is beginning with a universal concept (e.g., anxiety, interpersonal relationships, motivation) and moving to observations within as well as between cultures is important. It is important because it facilitates the examination of the role of culture and the generation of evidence for both cultural generality and cultural specificity. The individualism/collectivism framework has been extensively applied, especially in the last decade, in order to identify cultural differences or variations (Kagitçibasi, 1997; Triandis, 1995, 1996; Triandis et al., 1993), and explain the organization of human development and social relationships in different cultures (Kagitçibasi & Berry, 1989). Individualism and collectivism are thought to represent systems of meanings in the context of which the nature of feelings, thoughts and behaviors should be expected to vary. These highly variable systems of meanings represent ways of life that are learned and shared by people and, in turn, transmitted from one generation to another (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993). At a cultural level, Triandis (1995) has defined collectivism as a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts of one or more collectives (e.g., family, co-workers, nation). These individuals are primarily motivated by duties imposed by these collectives and place emphasis on their relatedness with members of these collectives. On the other hand, individualism has been defined as a social pattern that consists of loosely

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

7

linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives; these individuals are motivated by their own preferences, needs, and rights (Triandis, 1995). In other words, they give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others and like to weigh the advantages and disadvantages in relating with others. Nisbett, Peng, Choi, and Norenzayan (2001) illustrate using a historical, philosophical, and epistemological account that societies differ markedly in their systems of thought. Indeed Nisbett et al. explained that China and other East Asian societies are collectivist and oriented toward the group, whereas America and other European-influenced societies are more individualist in orientation. More specifically, Triandis (1995) has identified that countries such as Brazil, India, Russia, Japan, and Greece demonstrate a social pattern that predominantly reflects the collectivist domain, whereas France, the United States, Germany and Britain demonstrate a social pattern that predominantly reflects the individualist domain. Overall, research indicates that there are broad and deep differences between East and West with respect to the collectivist/individualist dimension. The parallel research design and the collectivism/individualism framework are used to facilitate the examination of the following questions: how is the coach – athlete relationship defined in a predominantly collectivist culture (Greek); is this definition different in a predominantly individualist culture (British) (see, Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001); and is the variation (if any) in meaning between the two cultures readily interpretable. In an attempt to answer these questions, the present study aims to, (a) employ a self-report instrument that assesses the nature of the coach – athlete relationship based on etic (i.e., global or universal) operationalizations; (b) provide evidence about the instrument’s validity and reliability by uncovering its emic aspects (i.e., culturally-specific dimensions) through the utilization of two independent samples of Greek coaches and athletes; and (c) discuss the results in light of the individualism/ collectivism framework. Study 1

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

8

Jowett and Ntoumanis (2001) developed an initial scale of 23 items to measure a universal concept, namely the coach – athlete relationship, through the constructs of Closeness, Co-orientation, and Complementarity (Table 1). The development of this scale was largely based on a series of qualitative case studies conducted by Jowett and colleagues (e.g., Jowett, 2001; Jowett & Cockerill, in press-b; Jowett & Meek, 2000). The conceptual model of the coach – athlete relationship (i.e., Closeness, Co-orientation and Complementarity) and its initial 23-item measure were employed for the purpose of this study. Specifically, the purpose of this first study was to incorporate cultural elements to broaden the model’s conceptual sphere and, in turn, develop a sound instrument that measures the athletic relationship among Greek coaches and athletes. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE Criterion validity is used for the development and validation of new measures (Thomas & Nelson, 1996). Interpersonal satisfaction was selected as a criterion because there is evidence to suggest that satisfaction is associated with athletes’ perceptions of coach leadership (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983), coach’s efficacy (Feltz, Chase, Hodge, Simensky, & Shi, 1996), coach – athlete compatibility (Horne & Carron, 1985), and the constructs of Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001). The items adopted to measure interpersonal satisfaction were “Do you feel satisfied by your overall coach – athlete relationship?” and “Do you think your athlete feels satisfied by your coach – athlete relationship as a whole?”. The intention was not to forecast who will, or will not experience satisfaction with the relationship at some time in the future, but rather to “predict” who does and who does not experience satisfaction at the time when the 23-item questionnaire was administered. All 25 items were translated into Greek using “parallel back-translation” (see Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995, p. 41). That is, the principal investigator translated the scale from the original language (English) to the target language (Greek), and

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

9

then it was translated back to the original language. Each item from the original scale and the retranslated into English scale was scrutinised to examine whether it had been appropriately retranslated. Once the scale deemed appropriately retranslated, the Greek scale considered adequate. Verification of the clarity of the Greek items was attained by the assistance of a Greek native speaker and academic at the University of Athens. The process was considered complete when the items were satisfactorily translated into Greek. Examinations of the translated scale’s construct and criterion validity, as well as internal reliability were subsequently undertaken. Method Participants The sample comprised 182 coaches and athletes (91 dyads). The criteria for selection included (a) a chronological age of at least 16 years for both coach and athlete, and (b) an athletic relationship of at least 6 months old. Coaches and athletes practised their sport in three major Greek cities (Athens, Thessaloniki and Patra). Sixty-three percent of the participants were males and 37% were females. The majority (91%) of the dyads was performing in individual sports such as athletics, gymnastics, pistol shooting, swimming, weightlifting, and wrestling. All levels of sport were represented: 37% of the participants competed at an international level, 36% at club level, and 26% at national level. Twenty-six dyads (15%) had an atypical coach – athlete relationship type, that is, 14 dyads had a familial, and 12 dyads had a marital coach – athlete relationship. Instrumentation The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (GrCART-Q). The translated 23-item CART-Q was employed in order to evaluate its psychometric properties. Of the 23 items, 7 were hypothesized to measure Closeness, 7 items were hypothesized to measure Co-orientation, and 9 items were hypothesized to measure Complementarity (Table 1). Furthermore, the two items of interpersonal satisfaction were

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 10 included in order to evaluate the criterion validity of the GrCART – Q. All 25 items were measured on a response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All items used in this study corresponded to those used in Jowett and Ntoumanis' (2001) study1; both studies were conducted in parallel. Procedure A renowned sport administrator and representative of the Hellenic Olympic Winners Association (HOWA) was contacted and asked to participate in the study as test administrator. Upon agreement, packets were sent to HOWA containing the questionnaires, instructions to participants for completing the questionnaires, and a letter describing the study and assuring confidentiality. Furthermore, the administrator was supplied with additional instructions related to questionnaire administration, completion, and collection. The return rate was very high (83%); a total of 220 packets were sent out of which 182 were returned completed. Receipt of return questionnaires was taken as informed consent. Data Analysis Initially, item analysis was employed to assess the reliability of the GrCART – Q subscales. High reliabilities would indicate low error variance and would reflect homogeneous subscales. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the allocation of the items to their designated constructs. Results Item Analysis Sarantakos (1998) and others (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) have proposed a number of criteria for refining scales. The following three criteria were selected and used: (a) an inter-item correlation between r = .30 - .70; (b) a minimum corrected item-total correlation coefficient of r = .40; and (c) a decrease in the estimate of alpha coefficient if an item was deleted. If any two of the above criteria were met, items were retained. One item from the Closeness subscale (item-5) and four items from the Co-orientation and Complementarity

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 11 subscales (items 9,10,11,15) failed to meet the above criteria and were deleted. As a result, the GrCART-Q was reduced to 18 items. The internal consistencies for the three subscales were acceptable (α = .88 for Closeness, α = .72 for Co-orientation, and α = .80 for Complementarity). All coefficients exceeded the minimum level of α = .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). Exploratory Factor Analysis Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation was employed in order to determine whether the items of Closeness, Co-orientation, and Complementarity were grouped in a particular way (Kline, 1994). Criteria for component extraction included: (a) eigenvalues greater than 1.0 to indicate that a component explains more variance than any single item; (b) a minimum of around 5% explained variance per component; and (c) component loadings of .40 and above, and at least .10 difference in the loadings when items cross-loaded. Eighteen (18) items were included in the analysis. The generated solution indicated that three items (1,13,22) had cross-loadings smaller than .10 and two items (8,23) recorded loadings smaller than .40. These items were deleted and PCA was conducted once again with the remaining 13 items that met the extraction criteria. PCA revealed a simple three-component solution (Table 2). Each component had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and explained more than 5.8% of the total variance. In addition, all items had loadings greater than .58 and their communalities (h2) were high indicating the proportion of variance accounted by the components. Finally, the three-component solution accounted for 63% of the overall variance and demonstrated high internal consistencies (i.e., α ≥ .85). INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Component 1 (Closeness). Four items (2, 3, 4, & 7) loaded on Component 1 accounting for 50.2% of the total variance. This component is representative of the construct of Closeness and reflects the affective aspect of the dyadic coach – athlete relationship. It consists of items such as,

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 12 experiencing feelings of trust, like, respect, and appreciation, all of which were initially hypothesised to measure Closeness. Furthermore, this component, with the exception of item-7, is identical to the corresponding component/construct the PCA yielded in Jowett and Ntoumanis’ (2001) study. Component 2 (Commitment). Four items (6, 12, 14, & 16) loaded on Component 2 accounting for 7.3% of the total variance. This component comprises items that were initially hypothesized to represent the constructs of Closeness (item-6), Co-orientation (items 12 & 14), and Complementarity (item16). To determine the component’s nature, the items were scrutinized and links were drawn from the literature. According to Jowett and Ntoumanis (2001), Commitment is an intention that keeps the coach and athlete together over time. According to Rusbult and Buunk (1993), commitment includes not only feelings of psychological attachment or cognitive interdependence, but also willingness to sacrifice, accommodative behavior, and favorable evaluations.

In the GrCART – Q, the emerged component reflects the construct of

interpersonal Commitment through coaches’ and athletes’ accommodative behaviour (i.e., communication and co-operation) and favorable evaluations (i.e., understanding and appreciating). Component 3 (Complementarity). Five items (17, 18, 19, 20, & 21) loaded on Component 3 accounting for 5.8% of the total variance. All items were hypothesised to represent the construct of complementarity (coaches’ and athletes’ co-operative acts of interaction). The items refer to being competent (item-17), concerned (item-18), understood (item-19), ready (item-20), and at ease (item-21) in relation to the other member. This component reflects coaches and athletes’ complementary behaviors during training. Jowett and Ntoumanis (2001) reported similar findings in the PCA solution of the British sample.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 13 Criterion Validity of the CART – Q The two items used to measure interpersonal satisfaction (r = .70) were correlated with the three constructs of Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity. Correlations ranged from r = .42 - .73, indicating a positive and moderate to strong relationships between interpersonal satisfaction and the derived components of the 13-item GrCART-Q. These results provide support for the criterion validity of the GrCART-Q. Discussion In Study 1, a general self-report instrument that measures the nature of the coach – athlete relationship was employed, translated, and administered to a sample of Greek coaches and athletes. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that Closeness and Complementarity were clearly identified components in the solution. Both Closeness and Complementarity were operationally defined by their corresponding factor loadings in a manner that was in line with initial operationalizations derived from the qualitative studies (Jowett, 2001; Jowett & Cockerill, in press-b; Jowett & Meek, 2000). However, Co-orientation was not a viable component in the solution. PCA instead pointed to a new interpersonal construct of Commitment. Co-orientation’s exclusion and Commitment’s emergence corresponded to Jowett and Ntoumanis’ (2001) findings. Jowett and Ntoumanis have suggested that the exclusion of Co-orientation may be due to its initial operationalisation and approach to assess the construct. In relation to the former point, Co-orientation has been operationalized as coaches’ and athletes’ verbal communication (e.g., Jowett & Meek, 2000). However, verbal communication is more likely to reflect an antecedent of Co-orientation rather than an operational definition of the construct itself. An attempt to reinstate the construct of Co-orientation in the athletic relationship has been recently made by Jowett and Cockerill (in press-a). Retaining that Co-orientation refers to perceptual consensus or common ground between dyad members (Newcomb, 1953), the two authors employed Laing, Philipson, and Lee's (1966) interperception approach to assess

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 14 two types of Co-orientation, (a) coaches and athletes’ levels of agreement, and (b) coaches and athletes' levels of understanding (accuracy) in relation to Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity. This approach not only provides a means by which different elements of Co-orientation are measured by comparing coaches’ and their athletes’ interpersonal perceptions, but also an approach to relationally analyze coach - athlete dyads. Empirical evidence is required to substantiate the usefulness of this approach and, subsequently, establish the role of Co-orientation in the athletic relationship alongside the constructs of Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity. Following the above analyses, Commitment is deemed to represent the cognitive relational aspect, Closeness the affective aspect, and Complementarity the behavioral relational aspect of the Greek coach – athlete relationship. The cultural meaning of Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity will be discussed in the General Discussion, once the three-dimensional structure of the GrCART-Q is confirmed with an independent sample. Study 2 Using a Monte Carlo simulation, Gerbing and Hamilton (1996) showed that exploratory factor analysis is a viable strategy for initial model testing, because it can uncover relatively well an underlying measurement model. However, model modifications produced by exploratory factor analysis should be cross-validated with an independent sample using confirmatory factor analysis in order to "fine-tune" the measurement model. Participants The criteria for selection of participants were the same with those used in the previous study. A total of 400 participants participated in the study of whom 30.5% were coaches and 69.5% were athletes. Sixty-seven percent of participants competed at individual sports, and 32.6% competed in team sports. All levels of sport were represented, 35.3% of participants practised their sports at recreational, club, or county level, and 64.5% practised their sport at

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 15 national or international level. Furthermore, 61.6% of participants had a “developed” relationship (the athletic relationship spanned from 6 months to 3 years) and 38% of participants had an “established” relationship (the athletic relationship spanned from 4 years to 18 years). The majority of the participants (94.5%) had a typical coach – athlete relationship, whereas 5.4% had an atypical relationship. Specifically, 9 participants had a familial coach – athlete relationship, 8 participants had a romantic coach – athlete relationship (i.e., partner or husband/wife), and 4 participants had another type of familial coach – athlete relationship (e.g., siblings). Instrumentation The 13-item GrCART-Q2 was used as the main instrument in Study 2. Of the 13 items, 4 items measure Commitment, another 4 items measure Closeness, and 5 items measure Complementarity. The two items of interpersonal satisfaction were also used to measure the criterion validity of the GrCART-Q. The items in the Closeness and Commitment scales were modified from a question format (e.g., “Do you trust your coach?”) to a statement format (e.g., “I trust my coach”), but their content and meaning was not altered. This modification resulted from feedback received from several participants (Study 1), and aimed to make the items more immediate and direct to both athletes and coaches. Procedure The test administrator was the same person as in Study 1.

A pack of 550

questionnaires (i.e., 200 coaches and 350 athletes) were sent to the HOWA. Each pack was accompanied by a letter, which outlined the purpose of the study, provided instructions for completing the questionnaires, and assured confidentiality. The distribution of the questionnaires was carried out from the HOWA office for a period of approximately 2 months. In addition, 100 extra questionnaires were subsequently mailed in order to meet the demand. A high return rate of completed questionnaires was recorded (62%). The returning of questionnaires was taken as an indication of informed consent.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 16 Data Analysis In order to identify the model structure which best captures the dimensions of coachathlete relationship, a number of competing models were tested using EQS 5.7 (Bentler, 1995). Separate analysis for coaches and athletes was not justifiable because the two samples were not independent. Such analysis could have been possible if the two samples were drawn independently of each other. The correlation matrix used for the analysis is presented in the Appendix. A sequence of fist-order and hierarchical models was created in the order suggested by Marsh (1987). The first four models specified and compared were first-order factor models. Model 1 (M1) was unidimensional and hypothesized a single factor structure representing a general coach - athlete relationship construct. Model 2 (M2) hypothesized a two-factor structure. The first factor incorporated the Complementarity items and was hypothesized to reflect behaviors. The second factor was comprised of the Commitment and Closeness items and was hypothesized to represent an affective state. Model 3 (M3) included three first-order factors representing the Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity dimensions identified in the exploratory factor analysis. This model reflected the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of the coach - athlete relationship. In view of the definition of a two-person relationship (Kelley et al., 1983), the first-order factors in M2 and M3 were allowed to covary. Model 4 (M4) was similar to M3, except that all factors were uncorrelated. The estimation of M4 was important because by comparing M3 and M4 it was possible to ascertain the magnitude of covariation among the first-order factors that could be subsequently explained by a hierarchical model (Marsh, 1987). The ratio of sample size to free parameters in the four models was about 15:1, which exceeds the ideal 10:1 ratio recommended by Bentler (1995). The normalized estimate of Mardia's coefficient was high (77.15) indicating multivariate non-normality. Therefore, the robust Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation procedure was utilized. According to Bentler (1995), this procedure offers more accurate standard errors when the data are not normally

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 17 distributed. Also, robust ML calculates the Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square, which should be used instead of the chi-square statistic for model evaluation and comparison. Fit Indexes. Various goodness-of-fit indexes were utilized to evaluate the adequacy of the factorial structure of the competing models (for a review, see Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). These indexes were the scaled chi-square, the Robust Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the NonNormed Fit Index (NNFI), the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), as well as the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confidence interval. Owing to the tendency of chi-square to reject well-specified models with relatively large sample sizes, additional fit indices were also examined. A simulation study by Hu and Bentler (1999) showed that a good model fit is also indicated when the CFI and the NNFI values are close to .95, the SRMR is close to .08, and the RMSEA is close to .06. Furthermore, a close model fit to the intended population is implied when the confidence interval of the RMSEA contains the value of .05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). To compare the competing models, chi-square difference tests were not carried out despite their frequent use in sport psychology literature. This is because these tests are no less subject to sample size influences than chi-square values from a single model. Therefore, two additional indexes were employed. The first one was the Consistent Akaike Information Criterion (CAIC), which assesses whether a good model fit can be achieved with fewer estimated parameters (i.e., with a more parsimonious model). The second index was the Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI), which represents an approximation of the fit the hypothesized model would have had achieved in another sample of the same size. The CAIC and ECVI do not have a specified range of acceptable values, but amongst the competing models, the one with the lowest CAIC and ECVI values would be the most parsimonious and likely to replicate with other samples (Hair et al., 1998). Results

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 18 Descriptive Statistics. Table 3 contains the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis scores of the 13 items. All mean scores were relatively high (i.e., above 5 on a 7-point scale). The skewness scores ranged from -1.69 to -1.02, and the kurtosis scores ranged from .412 to 2.67 indicating moderate non-normality in the data distribution. INSERT TABLE 3 HERE Preliminary Analysis. Multivariate analysis of variance was employed in order to test whether a combination of the constructs of Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity varies as a function of the participants’ group membership. The four groups were: (a) individual versus team sport participants, (b) participants who participated at basic level (recreational, club) versus toplevel (national, international) sport, (c) participants with developing versus established athletic relationships, and (d) participants’ role as coaches versus athletes. The three interpersonal constructs served as the dependent variables and the four groups (i.e., role, longevity, type and level of sport) served as the independent variables. The results largely show that no differences in mean scores were found apart from participants’ role (Table 4). INSERT TABLE 4 HERE Follow-up univariate analyses were conducted in order to uncover the effects of the independent variable of participants’ role on the different dependent variables of Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity. The results from the analysis indicated significant main effects for participants’ role on Commitment F (1, 386)=5.514 p= .019, and on Complementarity F (1, 386)=25.102 p< .001. These results indicate that there are mean differences, which are associated with participants’ role in the Commitment and Complementarity subscales of the CART – Q. The existence of mean difference or not, does not indicate that there will be differences in the factor structure of the questionnaire. Thus, the invariance of the CART – Q with a larger sample size should be examined in the future.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 19 Model evaluation. Following the recommendation by Li and Harmer (1996), model evaluation and comparison were carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the four first-order models were compared to determine the best-fitting model. The convergent and discriminant validities of the best-fitting model were also ascertained. In the second stage, the best-fitting first-order model was compared to the high-order model (M5) to examine whether the latter model could adequately represent the covariations among the first-order factors. In all models, standardized solutions showed that the factor loadings, factor variances, and error variances were significant and within the appropriate range. The fit indexes in Table 5 show that the one-factor unidimensional model (M1) had a marginally poor fit, CFI and NNFI values below .95, and high RMSEA values. The two-factor model (M2) had a very good fit with most fit indexes meeting the criteria proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999). Nevertheless, the RMSEA was relatively high (.08) and its confidence interval did not include the .05 value. The three correlated factors model (M3) achieved the best fit with a nonsignificant scaled chi-square value and all indexes meeting or exceeding the criteria set by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Browne and Cudeck (1993). The worst fitting model was the three uncorrelated factors model (M4) whose fit indexes were very poor and was, therefore, excluded from subsequent comparisons. A comparison of the first three models shows the relatively better fit of M3. Specifically, M3 had considerably lower CAIC and ECVI values, indicating that it was more parsimonious and more likely to be replicated with an independent sample compared to M1 and M2. INSERT TABLE 5 HERE Convergent and Discriminant Validity. The convergent validity of the best-fitting model (M3) was ascertained by examining whether each of the items in the model had substantial loadings to their hypothesized factors (Li & Harmer, 1996). Figure 1 shows that all factor loadings were high and statistically

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 20 significant (p < .001), ranging from .71 to .87 (M = .79) in the Commitment subscale, from .74 to .86 (M = .83) in the Closeness subscale, and from .82 to .86 (M = .83) in the Complementarity subscale. INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE Additional evidence for the convergent validity of M3 was obtained from the variance extracted estimate (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This estimate represents the average proportion of variance in the items accounted for by their underlying factors in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), values above .50 are deemed satisfactory. In this study, the values were .63 for the Commitment factor, .69 for the Closeness factor, and .69 for the Complementarity factor. Taken together, these results support the convergent validity of the three-factor structure of the modified GrCART-Q. The discriminant validity, or the extent to which the three factors of M3 exhibit uniqueness, was ascertained by calculating the factor correlations (Li & Harmer, 1996). Factor correlations are higher than Pearson's correlations because they are corrected for measurement error. Results showed that the factor correlations were high (r commitment-closeness = .90; r commitment-complementarity = .90; r closeness -complementarity = .93) casting doubt on the discriminant validity of M3. Furthermore, the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals of all factor correlation exceeded unity, suggesting that the three refined GrCART-Q factors can sometimes be perfectly correlated. Following the example of Markland, Emberton, and Tallon (1997), the possibility for a single construct was examined by comparing the model with the three correlated factors (M3) against 3 two-factor models in which two of the modified GrCART-Q factors were combined in turn. As shown above, when the Commitment and Closeness items were hypothesized to load on the same factor and Complementarity was assessed as a separate factor (i.e., M2), the model fit was slightly poorer than that of M3. Furthermore, as Table 3 shows, M3 had smaller CAIC and ECVI values compared to a model (M6) in which

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 21 Closeness and Complementarity loaded on the same factor and to a model (M7) in which Commitment and Complementarity loaded on the same factor. These findings indicate that, despite the high factor correlations, the three factors are not identical. Reliability. A further step in the analysis of the modified GrCART-Q was the estimation of the internal consistency of its subscales. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were α = .87 for Commitment, α = .90 for Closeness, and α = .91 for Complementarity. All coefficients exceeded the minimum level of α = .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). In addition, the reliability of the subscales was ascertained by computing composite reliability estimates, which represent the ratio of squared loadings to error variance (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The estimates of each subscale were high, providing further evidence for the internal consistency of the refined GrCART-Q: .87 for Commitment, .90 for Closeness, and .92 for Complementarity. Second-Order Factor Analysis. Following Li and Harmer's (1996) approach, the second stage in the model validation procedure was to compare the best-fitting first-order model (M3) with a single-factor higherorder model (M5). M5 was a higher-order factor model which examined whether a general factor, that of a coach-athlete relationship, can account for the correlations among the three first-order factors. Hierarchical models are nested under first-order models because they attempt to explain the correlations among the three first-order factors in terms of a single higher-order factor. The fit indexes of the higher-order factor are worse or, at best, identical to the fit indexes of the corresponding correlated first-order model. In this case, M3 and M5 had identical fit because when there are three first-order factors, the degrees of freedom needed to explain the covariation among the factors are identical to the degrees of freedom needed to explain the first-order factor loadings on the hierarchical factor (i.e., df = 3). Equivalent models (i.e., models with identical reproduced covariance matrixes and fit indexes; see

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 22 MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, & Fabrigar, 1993) exist in all structural equation modeling applications. The second-order factor loadings were substantially high (.96, .93, .97, for Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity respectively) and significantly different from zero (p < .001; see Figure 1). Marsh's (1987) Target Coefficient 2 was used to indicate the extent to which the covariations among the first-order factors could be accounted for by the higher-order factor. This coefficient varies between 0 and 1; in this study it had the value of 1, indicating that the higher-order factor was able to explain all the first-order factor covariation. Taken together, the fit indexes and the Target Coefficient 2 showed that the coach - athlete relationship could be conceptualized along three dimensions, which could be subsumed within a higher order generic dimension. However, Marsh (1987) warned that even when there are substantial correlations among some first-order factors and a higher order model provides a good fit, some first-order factors may be poorly represented by the higher order factors. To examine this possibility, Marsh proposed the Explained Variance Ratio (EVR), which represents the proportion of variance in a first order factor that is accounted for by the higher order factor. The EVR varies from 0 to 1; values close to 1 indicate that almost all of the variance of a lower order factor can be explained by the higher order factor. The results in this study indicated that the higher-order factor accounted for a large percentage of the variance of the first-order factors (87%, 91%, and 93%, of the Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity variance respectively). Finally, the Cronbach's alpha for the higher-order Coach-Athlete Relationship factor was α = .96. Criterion validity of the refined GrCART – Q. The analyses in the previous section showed that M3 and M5 were equivalent models. H. Marsh (personal communication, February 11, 2001) suggested that the two models could be distinguished by including an additional criterion validity variable into the analysis. Therefore, the two items measuring interpersonal satisfaction (r = .61) were used as the

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 23 criterion variable. The criterion of satisfaction was used because there is evidence in the literature to indicate an association between the variables of coach – athlete relationship and satisfaction (e.g., Chelladurai & Carron, 1983; Horne & Carron, 1985; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001). Two competing models were tested; Model 8 (M8) in which the correlated three firstfactors of M3 predicted interpersonal satisfaction, and Model 9 (M9) in which the hierarchical factor of M5 predicted the same criterion variable. Since M9 used 1 df to explain the predicted path, it was nested under M8 that required 3 df to explain the three paths. Therefore, it was possible to statistically compare the fit of the two new models using the CAIC and the ECVI values. Results (see Table 5) showed that the two models were not significantly different as their CAIC and ECVI values were very similar. However, the hierarchical model (M9) could be preferred over the first-order model (M8) because it achieved the same fit with fewer degrees of freedom. In M9, the path coefficient between the higher-order factor and interpersonal satisfaction was very high (β = .93; p < .01). In M8, the path coefficients between interpersonal satisfaction and the three factors of Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity were of moderate to small size: β = .37 (p < .01), β = .07 (p > .05), and β = .51 (p < .01), respectively. Thus, the results indicated that high levels of interpersonal satisfaction predicted higher levels of Commitment and Complementarity, but not high levels of Closeness. Discussion The advantages of employing CFA were demonstrated through (a) the specification of various hypothesized model configurations of the GrCART – Q, (b) the empirical examinations and comparisons of each competing factor structure, and (c) the selection of a final model that is potentially valid and consistent with conceptual underpinnings. The examination of the competing first-order factor structures of the GrCART – Q led to the confirmation of a three-factor structure (M3). This factor structure was comprised of the

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 24 latent factors of Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity. Moreover, a higher-order factor structure that subsumes these three latent factors under the second-order factor of coach – athlete relationship fit the data equally well. Further analyses indicated that the higherorder factor structure (M5) could be preferred over the first-order three-factor structure (M3) on the grounds of parsimony when interpersonal satisfaction was used as a criterion variable. Furthermore, the first-order factor structure had problematic discriminant validity, which is another reason to suggest that the higher-order factor structure can probably best capture the coach-athlete relationship. These results are consistent with Jowett and Ntoumanis’ (2001) reported factor structures of the British CART - Q. Lastly, only the relational aspects of Commitment and Complementarity were found to predict interpersonal satisfaction. General Discussion The GrCART-Q measures the nature (quality and quantity) of the athletic relationship and, more specifically, coaches’ and athletes’ emotions, cognitions, and behaviors as captured in the interpersonal constructs of Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity respectively. The parallel research design utilized reveals evidence for both cultural generality and cultural specificity. Specifically, the present findings are relatively consistent with the findings of Jowett and Ntoumanis (2001) with two independent British samples, suggesting that the conceptualization of the coach – athlete relationship has cross-cultural generality. It could be said that the interpersonal constructs used to conceptualize the coach – athlete relationship are fundamental and robust, thus, they are not affected by culture. On the other hand, the British and Greek coaches and athletes appear to have attached different meanings to the constructs suggesting cultural specificity. Thus, it could be said that there is both cultural generality (emic aspect) and cultural specificity (etic aspect) in the concept of the coach - athlete relationship (Table 6). According to Triandis (1975), the use of concepts that have both etic and emic aspects, and the development of methods that can incorporate both kinds of aspects

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 25 contribute towards developing theories that are robust, less transitory, and less dependent on cultures. INSERT TABLE 6 HERE In order to explain cultural variation in the meanings that the British and the Greek coaches and athletes attach to their athletic relationships the individualism/collectivism framework is applied next. The individualist British coaches and athletes associated Closeness with liking, trusting, and respecting the other (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001). The collectivist Greek coaches and athletes defined Closeness with similar affective properties (i.e., liking, trusting, respecting). What differentiates the Greek dimension of Closeness from the British, are the properties of future expectation and appreciating the sacrifices the other is subjected to. For the Greeks, the expectation that the relationship will continue in the future is associated with positive affect. This is in line with the literature as collectivist cultures value relationships that are long-term (Triandis, 1995; Triandis et al., 1993). On the other hand, the individualist cultures carefully compute the costs and benefits of relationships (Triandis, 1995). Accordingly, British coaches and athletes place an emphasis on "sacrificing" and “appreciating”, which may indicate that coaches and athletes are more likely to value their relationship when/if there is a balance between benefits such as appreciation (recognition and regard) and costs such as sacrifice (detriment and abstain). Commitment generally refers to relationship member’s intention to stay together over time (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Commitment for the British is linked to the idea of cognitive attachment (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2001), whereas for the Greeks, Commitment is linked to the idea of accommodative behaviour and favourable evaluations. British coaches and athletes place emphasis on maintaining close ties (interdependence) over time, whereas Greek coaches and athletes place emphasis on co-operation, acceptance, and sharing. Thus, although people in collectivist cultures are more likely to form long-term relationships than in individualist

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 26 cultures (Triandis, 1995), these findings suggest that both British and Greek coaches and athletes establish lasting relationships by emphasising different aspects of Commitment. The dimension of Complementarity reflects coaches’ and athletes’ behavioral interdependence through co-operative actions during training. The results of this study are in line with the Jowett and Ntoumanis’ (200l) findings with subtle differences reflecting cultural variation in coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions regarding the construct of Complementarity. Specifically, items such as being at ease and ready were consistent in both the British and Greek subscales. However, being concerned (i.e., interested and thoughtful), competent, and understood with the other in the relationship were items distinct to the Greek subscale, whereas being friendly and responsive were distinct to the British subscale. The different emphasis placed, indicate that coaches’ and athletes’ behaviours in training are affected and specified by the cultures in which they are socialised. Overall, the findings indicate that cultural influences emerge from the Greek and British coaches’ and athletes’ feelings, cognitions, and behaviors. Furthermore, the findings suggest that, although, there is disparity at an operational level (emic) with regard to the dimensions of the coach – athlete, there is cultural equivalence at a conceptual level (etic). Culture at a theoretical and empirical level is an important determinant of interpersonal relationships in cross-cultural sport psychology research. Given that participants from different cultures are likely to construe psychological concepts differently, caution is required when researchers develop or use instruments to measure such concepts. It is essential that instruments are psychometrically sound and reflect a meaningful appraisal of how participants perceive and experience such concepts. Helms (1992) has explained that “the cultural equivalence fallacy” (p. 1094) would live on until investigators begin to study cultural issues through a wider spectrum of conceptual and empirical analyses of instruments. In this study, the utilization of the parallel research design and the individualism/collectivism framework have probably prevented us to succumb to the cultural equivalence fallacy.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 27 The GrCART-Q has sound psychometric properties including good content and construct validity, as well as high internal consistency. Although, this manuscript represents a first important attempt to develop a culturally-specific questionnaire to measure the concept of the coach – athlete relationship, researchers should endeavor to examine: (a) whether the factor structure of the GrCART - Q holds in other collectivist cultures; (b) other psychometric properties of the GrCART - Q such as test-retest reliability; (c) the invariance of the CART – Q employing large samples, and (d) the coach – athlete relationship employing approaches which are specific to the study of dyads (see Jowett & Cockerill, in press-a). Moreover, the exploration of variables that are seemingly influenced by culture (e.g., coaching philosophies, coaches’ and athletes’ moral values, the importance of sport) could provide useful explanations of antecedents and consequences that underpin the coach – athlete relationship in different cultures. Such explanations would be particularly valuable because they will go over and beyond the heuristic framework of individualism/collectivism used here to explain cultural variation.

References Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 5, 792-807.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 28 Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S.R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park: CA: Sage. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380. Duda, J.L., & Hayashi, C.T. (1998). Measurement issues in cross-cultural research within sport and exercise psychology. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Earley, P.C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the U.S. and the People's Republic of China. Administarative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581. Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Hodge, C.N., Simensky, S.G., & Shi, J. (1996). Preliminary test of the model of coaching efficacy: Sources and outcomes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, Supplement, S28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 62-72. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Helms, J.E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101. Hemery, D. (1986). The pursuit of sporting excellence: A study of sport’s highest achievers. London: Willow Books Collins.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 29 Hinde, R.A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. London: Psychology Press. Horne, T., & Carron, A.V. (1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 137-149. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Hui, C.H., & Triandis, H.C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural counseling: A review and comparison strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131-152. Isogai, H., Brewer, B.W., Cornelius, A.E., Komiya, S., Tokunaga, M., & Tokushima, S. (2001). Cross-cultural validation of the Social Physique Anxiety Scale. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 76-87. Jowett, S. (2001). When the honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach – athlete dyad in crisis. Manuscript submitted for publication. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I.M. (in press-a). Incompatibility in the coach – athlete relationship. In I.M. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in Sport Psychology. London: Thompson Learning. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I.M. (in press-b). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete – coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Jowett, S., & Meek, G. (2000). The coach - athlete relationship in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157-175. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2001). The Coach - Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART – Q): Development and Initial Validation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Jowett, S., & Pearce, J. (2001, May). An exploration into the nature of the coach – athlete relationship in swimming. In A. Papaioannou, Y. Theodorakis, & M. Goudas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Sport Psychology (Part 3, pp. 227-229). Skiathos, Greece.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 30 Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry & M. H. Segall & Ç. Kagitçibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 3-49). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Kagitçibasi, Ç., & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: current research and trends. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 493-531. Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R. (Eds.) (1983). Close Relationships. New York: Freeman. Kiesler, D.J. (1997). Contemporary interpersonal theory research and personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge. Kolt, G.S., Kirkby, R.J., Bar-Eli, M., Blumenstein, B., Chadha, N.K., Liu, J., & Kerr, G. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation of reasons for participation in gymnastics. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 381-398. Laing, R.D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A.R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. New York: Harper & Row. Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 49-63. Li, F., Harmer, P., Chi, L., & Vongjaturapat, N. (1996). Cross-cultural validation of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 392-407. MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185-199.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 31 Markland, D., Emberton, M., & Tallon, R. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Subjective Exercise Experiences Scale among children. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 418-433. Marsella, H.A. (1980). Depressive experience and disorder across cultures. In H.C. Triandis, & J.C. Dragnus (Eds.), Psychopathology: Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 237-289). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Marsh, H. W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 17-39. Martens, R. (1997). Successful coaching (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Miller, J.G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually-oriented versus duty-oriented interpersonal codes. Cross-Cultural Research, 28, 3-39. Newcomb, T.M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404. Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).

Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill. Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., Tuson, K.M., Briere, N.M., & Blais, M.R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53. Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. London: Houghton, Mifflin. Rosenblatt, P.C. (1977). Needed research on commitment in marriage. In G. Levinger & H.L. Rausch (Eds.), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy. Amhurst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 32 Rusbult, C.E., Buunk, B.P. (1993).

Commitment processes in close relationships: An

interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 744-753. Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social Research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Si, G., & Chung, P.K. (2001). East meets west: Indigenous and cross-cultural analysis of sport and exercise psychology. In A. Papaioannou, Y. Theodorakis, & M. Goudas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Sport Psychology (Part 5, pp. 4147). Skiathos, Greece. Smith, R.E., & Smoll, F.L. (1996). The coach as a focus of research and intervention in youth sports. In F.L. Smoll, & R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsysocial perspective (pp. 125-141). Dubugue, IA: McGraw-Hill. Sue, D., & Sue, S. (1987). Cultural factors in the clinical assessment of Asian Americans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 479-487. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell L. S. (Eds.) (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1996). Research Methods in Physical Activity (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Triandis, H.C. (1975). Cultural training, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal attitudes. In R.W. Brislin, S. Bochner, and W.J.Lonner (Eds.). Cross cultural perspectives on learning. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Oxford: Westview Press. Triandis, H.C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-215. Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J.M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J.B.P., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic – emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366-383.

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 33 Vergeer, I. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: From nomology to idiography. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 578-583. Weiss, M. (2001). Athletes’ social networks and relationships: Current status and unexplored frontiers. In A. Papaioannou, Y. Theodorakis, & M. Goudas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Sport Psychology (Part 6, pp. 170-172). Skiathos, Greece. Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T., & Bond, M.H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday life: The Middle Kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79-86. Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555-572.

Table 1 The 23-item CART - Q (coach’s version) as derived from the qualitative case studies ITEMS

CLOSENESS 1. Do you feel close to your athlete?

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 34 2. Do you like your athlete? 3. Do you trust your athlete? 4. Do you respect your athlete’s efforts? 5. Do you feel committed to your athlete? 6. Do you feel appreciation for the ‘sacrifices’ your athlete has experienced in order to improve his / her performance? 7. Do you feel that your sport (coaching) career with your athlete is promising? CO-ORIENTATION 8. Do you communicate enough with your athlete about training? 9. Do you agree with your athlete’s views? 10. Do you know your athlete’s strong points? 11. Do you know your athlete’s weak points? 12. Do you communicate well with your athlete? 13. Do you strive to achieve similar goals with your athlete? 14. Do you feel there is understanding between your athlete and yourself? COMPLEMENTARITY 15. Do you think that both of you work appropriately in achieving the goals set? 16. Do you think that both of you work well in achieving the goals set? 17. When I coach my athlete, I feel competent. 18. When I coach my athlete, I feel interested. 19. When I coach my athlete, I am understood. 20. When I coach my athlete, I am ready to do my best. 21. When I coach my athlete, I feel at ease. 22. When I coach my athlete, I feel responsive. 23. When I coach my athlete, I adopt a friendly stance.

Table 2 Principal Component Analysis of the GrCART-Q (items translated) after Obligue rotation Item No.

Items Closeness

Compon 1

Compon 2

Compon 3

h2

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 35 2

Do you like your athlete/coach?

.73

.61

3

Do you can trust your athlete/coach?

.71

.64

4

Do you respect your athlete’s/coach’s efforts?

.76

.65

7

Do you feel that your sport career with your athlete/coach is promising?

.74

.63

6

12

Commitment Do you feel appreciation for the sacrifices your athlete/coach has experienced in order to improve…performance? Do you communicate well with your athlete/coach?

.77

.66

.59

.64

14

Do you feel there is understanding between your athlete/coach and yourself?

.73

.66

16

Do you think that both of you work well in achieving the goals set?

.61

.69

17

Complementarity When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by coach, I feel competent

.65

.69

18

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I feel concerned

.64

.79

19

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I am understood

.75

.73

20

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I am ready to do my best When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I feel at ease. Percentage of variance explained Eigenvalues Alpha coefficients

.76

.70

.59

.54

21

50.2 8.4 .90

7.3 1.4 .85

5.8 1.1 .85

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the final GrCART-Q (items translated) Item No.

Items

M

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 36 Closeness 1.

I feel that my sport career is promising with my athlete/coach

5.45

1.61

-1.03

.41

2.

I like my athlete/coach

6.00

1.35

-1.62

2.39

3.

I trust my athlete/coach

5.82

1.49

-1.46

1.57

4.

I respect my athlete/coach

6.06

1.30

-1.69

2.67

I feel appreciation for the sacrifices my athlete/coach has experienced in order to improve…performance

5.70

1.48

-1.23

1.02

6.

I co-operate well with my athlete/coach so that goals are achieved

5.62

1.38

-1.28

1.65

7.

My communication is satisfactory with my athlete/coach

5.36

1.52

-1.02

.58

8.

I understand my athlete/coach

5.62

1.32

-1.17

1.35

Commitment 5.

Complementarity 9.

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I feel competent

5.74

1.44

-1.28

1.21

10.

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I feel concerned

5.85

1.47

-1.48

1.74

11.

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I feel at ease

5.77

1.45

-1.32

1.26

12.

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I am ready to do my best

5.83

1.31

-1.42

1.96

13.

When I coach my athlete / When I am coached by my coach, I am understood

5.42

1.44

-1.03

.70

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 37 Table 4 Multivariate analysis comparing athletes and coaches on Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity subscales M (SD) Subscale

Athletes

Coaches

Closeness

5.78 (1.64)

5.96 (1.15)

Commitment

5.45 (1.53)

5.80 (1.10)

Complementarity

5.53 (1.52)

6.15 (1.03)

Note. N = 390. Wilk’s Lambda = .94, F (3, 331) = 7.505. p < .001

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 38 Table 5 Fit statistics of the four competing models Models

Scaled χ2

df

Robust

NNFI

SRMR

RMSEA (90% CI)

CAIC

ECVI

CFI M1

149.96**

65

.94

.93

.04

.10 (.08 - .11)

-171.45

1.01

M2

119.52**

64

.96

.95

.03

.08 (.07 - .09)

-223.13

.87

M3

77.61

62

.99

.97

.02

.06 (.05 - .07)

-284.66

.67

M4

570.19**

65

.67

.69

.48

.20 (.19 - .21)

586.89

8.17

M5

77.61

62

.99

.97

.02

06 (.05 - .07)

-284.66

.67

M6

99.66**

64

.98

.96

.03

07 (.06 - .09)

-253.21

.79

M7

130.11**

64

.96

.95

.03

.09 (.07 - .10)

-205.48

.91

M8

110.16*

84

.99

.97

.02

.07 (.06 - .08)

-364.99

.95

M9

110.89*

86

.99

.97

.02

.07 (.05 - .08)

-377.28

.95

Note. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, 90% CI= 90% confidence interval of RMSEA, CAIC = Consistent Akaike Information Criterion, ECVI = Expected Cross-Validation Index, M1-M9 refer to models presented in the text. * p < .05; ** p < .01

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 39 Figure 1. Model 5 represents the higher-order factor Coach-Athlete Relationship and the three first-order factors of Commitment, Closeness, and Complementarity. All parameters are standardized and significant (p < .001).

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 40

Coach-Athlete Relationship .96

.97 .93 .36

.29

.28

Closeness

Complementarity

Commitment

.76 Comm1

.65

.83 Comm2

.56

.87 Comm3

.49

.71 Comm4

.70

.74

.86

.86

.82

.86

.86

.84

.82

Clos1

Clos2

Clos3

Clos4

Comp1

Comp2

Comp3

.67

.50

.51

.50

.57

.51

.55

.82

Comp4

.57

Note: Comm= Commitment, Clos= Closeness, Comp= Complementarity. Model 3 and Model 5 have identical first-order factor loadings.

Comp5

.56

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 41 Table 6 Conceptual Equivalence and Operational Diversity in the British and Greek Coach – Athlete

Coach & Athlete’s Feelings

Coach & Athlete’s Cognitions

Coach & Athlete’s Behaviors

3 C’s

Closeness

Commitment

Complementarity

Closeness refers to the emotional tone experienced and perceived by the athletic dyad. Closeness is reflected on the dyad’s affective ties or bonds and includes affective properties such as like, trust, and respect.

Commitment represents a long-term orientation toward the athletic relationship and includes intent to persist, feelings of psychological attachment, cognitive interdependence accommodative behavior, willingness to sacrifice, and favourable evaluations.

Complementarity refers to complementary needs that are satisfied through complementary acts of interaction in training. For example, cooperative acts of interaction such as readiness and easiness define complementarity.

Like Trust Respect Appreciation/Sacrifice

Intimacy Commitment Future Expectation

Ready Ease Responsive Friendly

British CART – Q

Broad definitions

RELATIONAL ASPECTS

Relationship Questionnaire.

Greek CART – Q

(4 items) Like Trust Respect Future Expectation (4 items)

(3 items) Appreciation/Sacrifice Communicate well Understanding Work Well (4 items)

(4 items) Competent Concerned Understood Ready Ease (5 items)

Note: Closeness, Commitment, and Complementarity are operationally defined in terms of their items (see General Discussion).

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 42

Appendix

The correlation matrix of the 13-items Clos1 Clos2 Clos3 Clos1 Clos2 Clos3 Clos4 Comm1 Comm2 Comm3 Comm4 Comp1 Comp2 Comp3 Comp4 Comp5

0.63 0.68 0.65 0.57 0.63 0.55 0.43 0.58 0.58 0.53 0.60 0.54

0.75 0.77 0.59 0.63 0.66 0.54 0.63 0.67 0.68 0.65 0.61

0.74 0.62 0.66 0.66 0.56 0.66 0.68 0.61 0.67 0.65

Clos4 Comm1 Comm2 Comm3 Comm4 Comp1 Comp2 Comp3 Comp4

0.61 0.64 0.63 0.55 0.63 0.68 0.63 0.65 0.60

0.65 0.64 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.55 0.56 0.61

0.72 0.59 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.65 0.66

0.64 0.62 0.67 0.71 0.64 0.70

Note: Clos= Closeness, Comm= Commitment, Comp= Complementarity.

0.52 0.51 0.57 0.53 0.56

0.71 0.66 0.69 0.65

0.73 0.70 0.68

0.68 0.69

0.67

The Greek Coach – Athlete Relationship Questionnaire 44 ENDNOTES 1

The present study and Jowett and Ntoumanis' (2001) study were conducted at approximately

the same chronological period. Similar methods were used in both studies. 2

The GrCART-Q is available upon request from the first author.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Mrs. Kali Apostolidi for her valuable assistance and support.