Investigating Effects from a Non-Formal Coach Education Program Based on Mentorship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file for comments, review and corrections. Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

Investigating effects from a non-formal coach-education program based on mentorship. This paper is all-round very sound and interesting for current research on the topic. The introduction offers a strong foundation for the study, outlining the importance of the coach-athlete relationship, coach education, and mentorship. It integrates a broad range of relevant literature and theoretical frameworks, including the Social Cognitive Theory and prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Each section builds logically toward the stated hypotheses. There is extensive literature review supported by recent and foundational references; clear articulation of gaps in existing coach education research and a well-defined hypothesis. The study uses a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test design with an experimental group and a control group, which is appropriate for assessing the effects of an 18-month intervention. The use of validated instruments and multiple regression analysis supports the reliability of the findings. So I must highlight the strengths and weaknesses namely a control group inclusion enhances internal validity and the use of linear regression allows for control of confounding variables like age and coaching hours. There are some limitations but they are acknowledged by the authors: small sample size, particularly in the control group and non-random group assignment reduces causal inference. Nonetheless, the methodology is clearly explained with a comprehensive detail on mentoring structure and data collection and g ood explanation of scales and their adaptations. The results are clearly presented, no suggestions to be made here. I highlight the separate tables for pre- and post-test comparisons, clear identification of significant findings, and effect sizes and p-values reported transparently. The conclusion are patially supported by the results specifically: hypotheses 2 and 4 (on perceived coach performance and social resources) are confirmed through regression analysis and no support was found for Hypotheses 1 and 3 (on the coach-athlete working alliance and coaches’ self-perception), which the authors acknowledge and contextualize.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out and provide such constructive and positive feedback on our work, we will reply on the concrete comments below.

 

Comments 2:

So there is an honest interpretation of mixed results and good integration with previous research and theory. I suggest that there may be some overinterpretation of small effects that could be tempered with more cautious language. I recommend that the paper is revisied to increase clarity around the limitations of the small sample size in both methods and discussion sections; consider a short paragraph further discussing the generalizability to non-Nordic coaching contexts and finally and finally expand briefly on how future mentorship programs might address CAWA and CPS directly.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, from page number 10 to 18 in the Discussion part. See the word file that is uploaded included track changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

1. Overall appreciation

Your article is a relevant and well-documented contribution to the effects of a non-formal mentoring training program for elite coaches. The approach mobilizes a solid theoretical framework, underpinned by a current, well-focused literature review. The research protocol is clear and rigorous, based on a coherent experimental methodology (pre/post-tests, control group), despite the significant logistical constraints this implies and limits precise duplication in another country, for example.

The results obtained, notably the positive effects on coaches' perception of performance and social resources, provide interesting elements for reflection on training models in the sporting field. Overall, the writing is fluid and well-structured, although certain passages would gain in impact if they were lightened to better highlight the key elements of your demonstration, perhaps in the form of a summary table highlighting the essential points.

2. Possible sources of improvement

- Clarification and streamlining of certain sections: Simplifying the presentation of results, with more emphasis on the main findings, would make them easier to read. At times, attention to detail detracts from the clarity of the conclusions.

- In its current version, the article mentions the use of several psychometric scales and tests (CAWA, PCP, CPS, SRS), but the “Statistical analyses” section does not always present in detail the properties of these instruments (validity, factor structure, Cronbach's alpha for the sample studied), nor how the scores were calculated (item mean? total score?).

In addition, some of the statistical analyses mentioned in the discussion do not appear to be fully described in the methodology section (e.g. multiple regression analyses mentioned without full explanation of the models, control variables, effects measured, etc.).

Clarification of these points would enhance the transparency of the study and the reproducibility of the protocol, especially if duplication in other contexts or countries is envisaged. A table summarizing the instruments and associated analyses could also facilitate reading.

- Discussion of negative or non-significant results: Some key indicators, such as Coach-Athlete Alliance (CAWA) or Self-Perception (CPS), show no significant change. These lack of effect would benefit from further analysis (possible explanations, methodological limitations, alternative hypotheses).

- Possible selection bias: The fact that the coaches in the experimental group were volunteers recommended by their federations introduces an initial motivation or commitment bias. This could be further discussed as a methodological limitation.

- Limited transferability: The system studied is based on a specific national organization (NOSC - Norway), in a strong institutional context. It would be useful to qualify the external scope of the results to other countries or less structured environments.

- Group balance and attrition: The imbalance between group sizes at post-test (n = 54 vs. 21) and the attrition rate could limit the power of certain analyses. Further clarification on this point would strengthen the robustness of your argument.

- Exclusively self-reported nature of the data: All the variables studied are based on self-reports. The addition of external data (observations, evaluations by peers or athletes) would have made it possible to triangulate the results.

In summary, this is a serious, relevant and well-structured work, which opens up interesting perspectives on the professionalization of coaches via non-formal approaches. These suggestions are intended to further enhance the scope and impact of your study.

Yours sincerely

Author Response

Comments 3:

1. Overall appreciation

Your article is a relevant and well-documented contribution to the effects of a non-formal mentoring training program for elite coaches. The approach mobilizes a solid theoretical framework, underpinned by a current, well-focused literature review. The research protocol is clear and rigorous, based on a coherent experimental methodology (pre/post-tests, control group), despite the significant logistical constraints this implies and limits precise duplication in another country, for example. The results obtained, notably the positive effects on coaches' perception of performance and social resources, provide interesting elements for reflection on training models in the sporting field. Overall, the writing is fluid and well-structured, although certain passages would gain in impact if they were lightened to better highlight the key elements of your demonstration, perhaps in the form of a summary table highlighting the essential points.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out and provide such constructive and positive feedback on our work, we will reply on the concrete comments below.

Comments 4:

Possible sources of improvement - Clarification and streamlining of certain sections: Simplifying the presentation of results, with more emphasis on the main findings, would make them easier to read. At times, attention to detail detracts from the clarity of the conclusions. - In its current version, the article mentions the use of several psychometric scales and tests (CAWA, PCP, CPS, SRS), but the “Statistical analyses” section does not always present in detail the properties of these instruments (validity, factor structure, Cronbach's alpha for the sample studied), nor how the scores were calculated (item mean? total score?).

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, in the result section at page number 7 to 10, we have provided each section with a header to help the clarity and structure of the manuscript. We have also explained the properties of the instrument in further detail at page 5 to 7. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track changes.

Comments 5:

In addition, some of the statistical analyses mentioned in the discussion do not appear to be fully described in the methodology section (e.g. multiple regression analyses mentioned without full explanation of the models, control variables, effects measured, etc.). Clarification of these points would enhance the transparency of the study and the reproducibility of the protocol, especially if duplication in other contexts or countries is envisaged. A table summarizing the instruments and associated analyses could also facilitate reading.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, page number 6 to 7, where the regression analysis are further explained, and the the new structure of the results section as described above. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track the changes.

Comments 6:

Discussion of negative or non-significant results: Some key indicators, such as Coach-Athlete Alliance (CAWA) or Self-Perception (CPS), show no significant change. These lack of effect would benefit from further analysis (possible explanations, methodological limitations, alternative hypotheses).

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, page number 11 to 15. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track the changes.

Comment 7:

Possible selection bias: The fact that the coaches in the experimental group were volunteers recommended by their federations introduces an initial motivation or commitment bias. This could be further discussed as a methodological limitation.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, page number 14 to 15. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track the changes.

Comment 8:

Limited transferability: The system studied is based on a specific national organization (NOSC - Norway), in a strong institutional context. It would be useful to qualify the external scope of the results to other countries or less structured environments. Group balance and attrition: The imbalance between group sizes at post-test (n = 54 vs. 21) and the attrition rate could limit the power of certain analyses. Further clarification on this point would strengthen the robustness of your argument.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, page number 14 to 15. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track the changes.

 

Comment 9:

Exclusively self-reported nature of the data: All the variables studied are based on self-reports. The addition of external data (observations, evaluations by peers or athletes) would have made it possible to triangulate the results.

 

 

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore we have changed the text in the manucript according to the reviewers comments, page number 14. Also se the word file of the revised manuscript and track the changes.

Comment 10:

In summary, this is a serious, relevant and well-structured work, which opens up interesting perspectives on the professionalization of coaches via non-formal approaches. These suggestions are intended to further enhance the scope and impact of your study.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out such constructive and positive feedback on our work.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your article, which was initially very well written, has been carefully re-read in its resubmitted version. The few relevant and well-targeted additions and clarifications have satisfactorily addressed the comments made during the initial review.

The manuscript is now fully acceptable for acceptance. We congratulate you on the investment you have made in this work and urge you to continue along this path, focusing on key points that enhance feasibility and reproducibility, perhaps opening it up to other contexts or countries.

Kind regards,