From leadership research to district action: A coach leadership reflection tool: facilitating coach reflection as a pathway for interpersonal development

AI-assisted editorial implementation guide. Proposed district actions are separate from the original authors’ findings and recommendations. Independent peer review of this guide is not asserted.

Read source Search paper agent CC BY 4.0

Evidence and transfer

Education-related source: verify which participants, institutions and outcomes were actually studied before district adoption. Source publication type: research-article. License and identity checks do not establish study quality or causality.

Original authors’ abstract, reproduced under the source license:

Abstract This study draws on models from medicine and education to examine competitive youth coaches’ perceptions of a reflective intervention on their interpersonal behaviours, which included pre-briefing, in-situ observation, reflection cards, and debriefing sessions. Through qualitative interviews with 12 coaches conducted before and after the intervention, we explored its usability and the coaches’ perceived outcomes in awareness, confidence, motivation, and perceived behaviour change related to interpersonal and intrapersonal coaching practices. Findings highlight the transformative potential of a reflective intervention to support meaningful behaviour change and enhance coaching effectiveness. Coaches reported increased confidence and a deeper appreciation of the role of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills in fostering positive coach–athlete relationships following the intervention. These insights offer important implications for coach development programming and applied coaching practice. Keywords: coach education, coach observation, coach-athlete relationships, global rating scale, intrapersonal knowledge, professional development, reflective practice, youth sport coaching

Study methods

This study implemented a four-phase reflective intervention (i.e., Coach Leadership Reflection; CLR), in which coaches participated in a pre-brief, in-situ observation, post-training reflection activity, and a debrief. Semi-structured interviews were used to capture coaches’ experiences with the intervention and were analyzed thematically.

Limitations

To provide a holistic view of this project, it is imperative to acknowledge the potential limitations associated with this study. Firstly, the coach participants were recruited from competitive volleyball clubs located in southern Ontario, Canada. Consequently, the generalizability of the study’s findings may be limited and future scholarship may investigate the applicability of these findings to other contexts, sports (e.g., basketball, soccer, rugby) and participant demographics. At the same time, the inclusion of coaches from multiple competitive clubs provided perspectives across varied team environments, offering a meaningful foundation for understanding the intervention within the context of youth competitive sport. However, the small sample size (N = 12) of participants may have contributed to a deceiving sense of data saturation. Additionally, given that the interviewer was also the CLR facilitator, participants may have experienced social desirability bias, potentially leading them to provide more positive feedback in the interview than they otherwise would have. Although, several factors help mitigate this concern. Participants provided both positive and negative feedback throughout the interviews and offered numerous constructive comments, suggesting a willingness to engage critically and reflect candidly on their experiences. However, it is recommended that future research may employ distinct facilitators and interviewers to mitigate potential biases.

A 90-day district inquiry

Days 1–15 · Appraise. Read the source methods, recruitment, comparator, outcomes and limitations. Record how the study setting differs from your district and which claim the design can support.
Days 16–30 · Design. Choose one recurring leadership practice described in the source. Map its participants, incentives and constraints to a district setting, then design a small reversible staff pilot with an accountable owner. Agree participation, privacy protections, baseline and stopping rules before starting.
Days 31–60 · Observe. Collect the pre-agreed measures, keep a log of implementation changes and invite confidential voluntary feedback. Preserve existing support for staff and learners.
Days 61–90 · Decide. Record implementation fidelity, staff review time, task quality and unintended burdens against a baseline. Use a comparison team where feasible and document alternative explanations before expanding. Make a dated decision to stop, revise or extend the inquiry.

Board decision brief

Present the local problem, source setting, evidence limits, intervention, responsible owner, total cost, measured changes and uncertainty. Separate staff perceptions, implementation measures and student learning outcomes.

Attribution and reuse

Mia KurtzFavero; Stuart G Wilson; Jean Côté. A coach leadership reflection tool: facilitating coach reflection as a pathway for interpersonal development. Frontiers in Psychology (2026-09-16). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1894977

Prepared 2026-11-07. Source authorship and DOI are preserved. The abstract and source passages are attributed extracts; this editorial guide is offered under the same CC BY 4.0 license.