A review of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research between 1997 and 2016.

A systematic observation method has been one of the most popularly employed methods in coaching research. Kahan's review of this method conducted between 1975 and 1997 highlighted the key trends in this research, and offered methodological guidance for researchers wishing to use this method in their research. The purpose of this review was to provide an update of the use of a systematic observation method in coaching research and assess the extent to which the calls made by Kahan have been addressed. While in some respect this field of study has progressed (i.e., the introduction of qualitative methods), researchers adopting this method have failed to attend to many of the issues Kahan raised. For this method to continue to make a positive contribution towards the coaching research literature, researchers need to more critically reflect on how and why they are employing this method. At present, some of the decisions made by researchers who have conducted work in this area are not justified with a rationale. It is our intention that this review will serve as guidance for researchers and practitioners, and editors and reviewers of journals when attempting to assess the quality of this type of work.

Re-visiting systematic observation: A pedagogical tool to support coach learning and development.

Systematic observation has been one of the most employed data collection methods in sport coaching literature. Initial work, originally undertaken in the 1970's, and gaining traction in the 80's and 90's looked to predominately offer descriptions of coaches' behavior. While this research continues to offer a significant contribution to the fields understanding of what coaches do during practice, systematic observation used only in this way has unfulfilled potential. The premise of this paper is to consider systematic observation as a coach development tool-a precedent which has been set in the literature. The arguments made are based on an alternative way of thinking about systematic observation, as a pedagogical tool that supports coaches in better understanding themselves and their pedagogical practice. Principles of dialogic pedagogy are used as the basis of our argument whereby "researchers" and "coaches" work collaboratively to co-construct knowledge and support coach reflection, and ultimately develop coaches' practice.

The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths Among Sports Coaches.

There has been an exponential growth in research examining the neurological basis of human cognition and learning. Little is known, however, about the extent to which sports coaches are aware of these advances. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas among British and Irish sports coaches. In total, 545 coaches from the United Kingdom and Ireland completed a measure that included questions about how evidence-based theories of the brain might enhance coaching and learning, how they were exposed to these different theories, and their awareness of neuromyths. Results revealed that the coaches believed that an enhanced understanding of the brain helped with their planning and delivery of sports sessions. Goal-setting was the most frequently used strategy. Interestingly, 41.6% of the coaches agreed with statements that promoted neuromyths. The most prevalent neuromyth was "individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, or kinesthetic)," which 62% of coaches believed. It is apparent that a relatively large percentage of coaches base aspects of their coaching practice on neuromyths and other pseudoscientific ideas. Strategies for addressing this situation are briefly discussed and include changing the content of coach education programs.

Children's First Experience of Taking Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids can Occur before Their 10th Birthday: A Systematic Review Identifying 9 Factors That Predicted Doping among Young People.

Taking performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) can cause serious and irreversible health consequences, which can ultimately lead to premature death. Some young people may take PEDs without fully understanding the ramifications of their actions or based on the advice from others. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the main factors that predicted doping among young people. The literature was systematically reviewed using search engines, manually searching specialist journals, and pearl growing. Fifty-two studies, which included 187,288 young people aged between 10 and 21 years of age, 883 parents of adolescent athletes, and 11 adult coaches, who were interviewed regarding young athletes, were included in this review. Nine factors predicted doping among young people: gender; age; sports participation; sport type; psychological variables; entourage; ethnicity; nutritional supplements; and health harming behaviors. In regards to psychological variables, 22 different constructs were associated with doping among young people. Some psychological constructs were negatively associated with doping (e.g., self-esteem, resisting social pressure, and perfectionist strivings), whereas other were positively associated with doping (e.g., suicide risk, anticipated regret, and aggression). Policy makers and National Anti-Doping Organizations could use these findings to help identify athletes who are more at risk of doping and then expose these individuals to anti-doping education. Based on the current findings, it also appears that education programs should commence at the onset of adolescence or even late childhood, due to the young age in which some individuals start doping.