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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.