Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42032646›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026

Evaluation of self-efficacy and psychological well-being among coaches of athletes with and without disabilities: a comparative cross-sectional study.

Leman Elmas, Sema Gultekin Arayici, Mehmet Emin Arayici

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Leman ElmasMinistry of Youth and Sports, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5866-0624
Sema Gultekin ArayiciDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Social Sciences, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2448-9037
Mehmet Emin ArayiciDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dokuz Eylül University, 15 July Medicine Campus, Inciralti-Balcova, Izmir, 35340, Turkey. mehmet.e.arayici@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0492-5129

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoaches influence athletes’ performance and psychosocial development, yet evidence comparing psychological well-being (PWB) and coach self-efficacy (CSE) between coaches working with athletes with disabilities and those coaching athletes without disabilities remains limited. This study aimed to compare PWB and CSE between these two coaching contexts, examine the association between CSE and PWB, and identify sociodemographic and professional predictors of both outcomes.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 312 coaches (mean age 35.79 ± 7.46 years; 50.0% female) were recruited through voluntary online participation. Of these, 49.4% coached athletes with disabilities and 50.6% coached athletes without disabilities. Data were collected using a structured sociodemographic form, the Psychological Well-Being scale, and the Coach Self-Efficacy scale. Pearson correlation analyses examined associations between psychological well-being and self-efficacy dimensions. Separate multiple linear regression models were constructed for each coaching context to identify independent predictors of psychological well-being and total coaching self-efficacy.

resultsTotal PWB scores did not differ significantly between coaches working with athletes with disabilities and those coaching athletes without disabilities (41.85 ± 10.07 vs. 43.26 ± 10.61; p = 0.229). In contrast, CSE was consistently higher among coaches of athletes with disabilities across all domains: performance (p = 0.032), psychological (p = 0.006), teaching (p = 0.011), character-building (p = 0.027), and management competence (p = 0.016). Total CSE scores were also higher in this group (84.32 ± 18.13 vs. 78.92 ± 18.21; p = 0.009). PWB was strongly and positively correlated with CSE in both groups (r values > 0.60). In regression analyses, income was the strongest independent predictor of PWB in both groups (p < 0.05). In the non-disability group, sex was additionally associated with PWB (p = 0.034). For total CSE, income and coaching level independently predicted higher scores in the non-disability group (p < 0.05), whereas relationship status was the only significant predictor in the disability group (p = 0.036).

conclusionsCoaches working with athletes with disabilities report higher self-efficacy across multiple domains, although overall psychological well-being is comparable across coaching contexts. The strong association between self-efficacy and well-being highlights perceived professional competence as a key correlate of coaches’ mental health. Sociodemographic and professional factors, particularly income, certification level, and relationship status, were associated with these outcomes. Given the cross-sectional design and voluntary online recruitment, the findings should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

Adaptive sportsCoach self-efficacyDisability sport coachingPsychological well-being

Identifiers

PMID42032646
PMCPMC13244921

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.