Abstract
Background
Special Olympics enables individuals with an intellectual disability across all continents to take part in sport year-round. Through its mission, Special Olympics provides a setting for athletes that aims to foster performance, participation, and personal development. Coaches play a central role in achieving these outcomes. As such, this scoping review aims to answer the following question: What is known about Special Olympics’ coach training and practices?
Method
Our scoping review was conducted according to Peters et al.'s (2020) guidelines. Keywords pertaining to Special Olympics, Program evaluation, and Coaches were searched in six databases to extract articles published between 1988 and October 1, 2021.
Results
In all, 16 studies were included in our scoping review. Of these studies, nine included information on coach training and 13 included information on coach practices. No randomized control trials were identified.
Conclusions
There is currently very little knowledge on Special Olympics coach training and practices. Moreover, there is no existing data to support the effectiveness of Special Olympics coaches formal training on coaches’ practices nor on athletes’ outcomes. There is an urgent need for research in this field.
Historically, individuals with an intellectual disability (ID) were marginalized, institutionalized, and even hidden from society (see Altermark 1 for a historical overview). In the second part of the 1950s, social movements emerged to ensure the recognition of persons’ with disabilities rights for equal opportunity. One specific context for which they had very few opportunities to take part in was organized sport. As such, in the 1960s, Eunice Kennedy Shriver developed the first Camp Shriver envisioning that “[…] through sports, the lives of people with intellectual disabilities would be transformed and public perceptions would be changed forever”. 2 In parallel, Dr Frank Hayden conducted research attesting the benefits of fitness and sport for individuals with an ID. 3 Together, the contribution of these two pioneers is considered as the foundation of the development of Special Olympics. Today, Special Olympics enables individuals with an ID to take part in sport year-round.
Although individuals with an ID can take part in Paralympics, access is restricted to those who practice swimming, table tennis, or track and field. 4 In addition, Paralympics is built for elite athletes (i.e., athletes are required to have a high-performance level and must take part in a qualification process) (see Chandan & Dubon 5 for a comparison on Special Olympics and Paralympics). Finally, Paralympics is offered as a competition platform based on a 4-year cycle whereas Special Olympics offers training and competitions on a yearly basis for athletes. 6 Special Olympics is therefore considered the largest sport organization for this population. 7 In fact, accredited programs are now offered to athletes with an ID across the world 8 (i.e., in 200 countries and jurisdictions across the globe). Since its inception, Special Olympics has made sport accessible to over 5.5 million athletes with an ID. Through its mission, it can be understood that Special Olympics touches upon three key concepts of coaching that Côté et al. 9 refer to as the 3Ps. Specifically, when analyzed, the different objectives and outcomes in their mission statement can be classified as fostering performance, participation, and personal development outcomes.
Within the general population, a large body of research supports that participating in sport can lead to positive outcomes pertaining to physical and mental health.10–12 Beyond physical and health-related benefits, sport participation can lead to positive developmental outcomes. Specifically, researchers outside of the Special Olympics setting have found that participating in community or high-school sport can lead to the acquisition, development, and transfer of skills such as social skills, teamwork, and leadership (e.g., Bean et al.; 13 Camiré & Santos 14 ). Within the context of Special Olympics, multiple positive developmental outcomes have been reported by researchers. In a recent systematic review, Tint et al. 15 stated that, although the quality of the studies and confounding variables limit the external validity of their results, there are a number of studies that have identified positive physical, psychological/emotional, and social outcomes in athletes who participate in Special Olympics. Life skills encompass different psychological, emotional, and social skills. They have been defined by Gould & Carson 16 as “those internal personal assets, characteristics and skills such as goal setting, emotional control, self-esteem, and hard work ethic that can be facilitated or developed in sport and are transferred for use in non-sport settings” (p.60). Within the context of sport, researchers have paid most attention to eight life skills: emotional skills, problem solving, goal setting, time management, interpersonal communication, social skills, teamwork, and leadership. 17
The development of life skills through sport has been deemed an essential objective at all levels of sport within the population without a diagnostic of ID (e.g., from youth recreational sport programs, such as the Sports United to Promote Education and Recreation Program, 18 to the International Olympic Committee 19 ). Although Tint et al.'s 15 findings are promising, it is important to note that sport participation alone does not necessarily lead to life skills development and transfer, but requires a structured environment that fosters such apprenticeship. 13 Different actors (e.g., parents, teachers) can influence youths’ positive development through sport. Coaches, in particular, are considered to play a key role in their athlete's sport-related and developmental growth.20,21
ID, as defined by the American Psychiatric Association, 22 is a diagnostic associated with impairments pertaining to an individual's cognitive and adaptative functioning. Impairments are present in three main domains including the conceptual domain (e.g., language, reasoning), the social domain (e.g., interpersonal communication and judgment), and the practical domain (e.g., self-care, autonomy in recreational activities). Although the level of support required for an individual to meet day-to-day demands varies based on the degree of impairment in each of the above-mentioned domains, individuals with an ID generally present challenges in one or more of the following areas: perceptual-motor functioning (e.g., coordination), language, learning and memory, social cognition, complex attention, and executive functioning. 23 In addition, many individuals with an ID have comorbid diagnoses (e.g., attention deficit disorder, anxiety) or health-related conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, obesity). Together, these deficiencies and co-existing conditions highlight that this population differs from the general population because “[…] people with ID need different types and intensities of supports to fully participate in and contribute to society” (p.48). 24 As such, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities states that it is essential for individuals who work with this population (e.g., staff, coaches, professionals) to have adequate training to help them thrive in their different environments and activities. 24
Coaches of individuals with an ID, in particular, must adapt their coaching to ensure that it meets their specific and individual needs. 25 Through their long-term and repeated interactions as well as the development of a significant coach-athlete relationship, coaches of athletes with or without an ID can positively contribute to their athlete's positive growth. 26 Studies have also shown that coaches can impact their athletes’ motivation to persue their sport27–28 – thus allowing the coach to remain in their athletes’ microsystem 29 and contribute to their development through sport. In fact, by using implicit, but most importantly explicit behaviors, coaches can enable their athletes to develop and transfer a variety of sport and life skills. 13 Coach education on how to generate positive development is an important factor for positive outcomes to occur.27,28 Coach development and education may occur through many forms, such as by informally learning from other coaches, being a mentor or being mentored, coaching, and formally by engaging in coach courses and programs (e.g., Taylor et al.; 30 Van Woezik et al.; 31 Walker et al. 32 ). Although the branch of research on coach training and practices has blossomed, research within the context of disability sport remains understudied. 33
While Special Olympics is committed to offering athletes with access to qualified coaching personnel, coach training and certification requirements are not overseen nor regulated by the organization. In fact, national and/or provincial entities usually have these responsibilities. As an example, Special Olympics Canada coaches are required to complete a minimum of one of three certification programs offered through the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP 34 ). Special Olympics Nigeria, on the other hand, appoints “volunteer coaches as state coordinators charged with the duty of ensuring continuous sports training and competition in their various states” (para. 3). 35
Offering Special Olympics athletes with a sport environment indicative of positive developmental outcomes that can be used within and beyond the sport setting is especially important for individuals with an ID given the functional limitations associated with their diagnostic and the social challenges they face. 22 To our knowledge, there are no existing reviews, systematic reviews or meta-analyses that have been conducted in regards to coaching athletes with an ID within or beyond the context of Special Olympics. Understanding the current state of knowledge and evidence pertaining to coaching athletes with an ID is essential to guide coach practices and future research with the ultimate goal of enhancing athletes’ experience and positive outcomes. As Special Olympics is the largest sport organization that offers training and competition opportunities to individuals with an ID, our scoping review covers literature on coaching within the context of Special Olympics.
Objectives
This paper was guided by the following research question What is known about Special Olympics’ coach training and practices? Considering the broad nature of our research question and the emerging literature on Special Olympics coaching, a scoping review was considered the most relevant study design. 36 Scoping reviews are intended to synthesize the existing literature on a specific topic and to suggest future research directions in light of identified research gaps. 37 In this paper, we aimed to identify the gaps in the literature pertaining to Special Olympics’ coach training and practices and to identify avenues for future research and intervention on Special Olympics’ coach training and practices.
Method
Framework and search methods
The scoping review was conducted according to Peters et al.'s 38 guidelines, which include seven steps: 1) defining and aligning the objectives and question; 2) developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objectives and question; 3) developing and implementing the search strategy; 4) evidence screening and selection; 5) data extraction; 6) data analysis; 7) presenting the results. These steps are derived from the Arksey and O’Malley 39 framework which was updated by Levac et al., 37 then by Peters et al..38,40 As suggested by Peters et al., 38 we published our scoping review protocol on an open access platform a priori to the implementation of the search methodology (https://https://osf.io/brymq).
Both published and unpublished literature presenting original data (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) on outcomes relating to Special Olympic Coaching were considered for the review. Three main concepts and related terms were searched in six databases: PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Cochrane, ERIC, Web of Science, and Proquest dissertations & theses. Specifically, the search combined terms associated with the following concepts: Special Olympics (“Special Olympi*” OR “Unified Sport*”), program evaluation (“program* evaluation*” OR “program* assessment” OR “impact evaluation*” OR “program* outcome*” OR “outcome* evaluation*” OR “outcome* assessment*”), and coaches (coach* OR mentor* OR educator* OR instructor* OR volunteer* OR trainer* OR teacher*). We implemented a 5-step search procedure. The first, second, and third steps consisted of running a search for each of our three themes (i.e., Special Olympics = S1; program evaluation = S2; and coaches = S3). Next, we ran a fourth search (i.e., S4) that was specified as S2 OR S3; thus, extracting all manuscripts that discussed either program evaluation or coaches. Finally, our fifth step (i.e., S5) was implemented as S1 AND S4; resulting in the extraction of manuscripts that discussed Special Olympics AND (program evaluation OR coaches). For each of the steps, we specified that the keywords could be present in Any Field of the databases’ records. As suggested by Peters et al., 40 the protocol and search strategy were peer-reviewed by a subject Librarian of the Université de Montréal using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) 2015 Guideline Evidence-based Checklist 41 The 5-step search procedure was implemented in each of the above-mentioned databases on October 1, 2021.
Four search strategies were used to obtain gray literature. First, publications from Special Olympics and National Program websites (www.specialolympics.org; www.specialolympics.ca) were hand-searched. Second, experts in the field (e.g., Special Olympics employees that overlook research and evaluation or coaching) were contacted via email to get access to internal documentation. Third, key researchers (e.g., principal investigators of articles responding to our inclusion and exclusion criteria) were contacted via email to identify unpublished research. Finally, the keywords selected to extract data from the six databases were used in the Google Scholar search engine. Given that Google Scholar's language of interrogation is not systematically English, we also translated our keywords in French to run this last step. In coherence with Haddaway et al.'s 42 recommendation, we assessed the first 200 results in English, and the first 100 results in French.
A final step to identify relevant research was conducted. Specifically, the reference lists of the retained studies were hand searched by ST and JT.
Eligibility criteria
Articles and documents published in English or French between February 1, 1988, and October 1, 2021, were considered for the scoping review. Albeit the fact that Special Olympics was founded in 1968, 1988 was selected as the lower bound date for our search procedure as it is the year the organization was officially recognized and endorsed by the International Olympic Committee). Inclusion criteria were selected in order to extract studies conducted with Special Olympics coaches within the Special Olympics setting. Specifically, the inclusion criteria used were: 1) Special Olympics coaches (employees and volunteers) of all ages and countries; 2) Coach training/education/certification, coach practices; and 3) Special Olympics (Traditional and Unified Sports programs; all sports included), competition, training, coach education programs or interventions. All study designs were considered for the review. Exclusion criteria were: 1) Club directors and coach support staff not recognized as official Special Olympics coaches (i.e., a parent supporting his child during training); 2) Physical health benefits as the sole outcome (e.g., weight loss, blood sugar level) of sport; 3) Physical activity and sport outside of the Special Olympics Organization; 4) Unavailable texts; and 5) Manuscript that did not present primary data (e.g., books, chapters, systematic reviews, etc.).
Screening
The screening and selection process was completed by two reviewers (ST/JT) using the COVIDENCE software. Upon disagreement, a third reviewer (DM) was consulted (see the Notes on Contributors section at the end of the article for a brief biography of the authors). The initial search led to the identification of 735 records (435 identified through databases and 300 identified through gray literature searches 1 ). A total of 96 duplicates were removed prior to the screening process. Based on titles and abstracts, 605 records were excluded due to irrelevance. The remaining 34 texts were assessed for full-text eligibility. Reference lists were also analyzed to identify documentation relevant to the scoping review question. Based on full-text assessments, 16 studies were included in the scoping review (13 originating from database searches, 3 originating from our Google Scholar search and none from the hand search). Disagreements were resolved by discussion, with an interrater agreement of κ = .71 based on titles and abstract screening, and κ = .75 based on full-text assessments. The PRISMA flow diagram (adapted from Moher et al. 43 ) is presented at Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
Data extraction
An Excel spreadsheet was created to conduct the data extraction process. Prior to data extraction of the manuscripts included in the review, two reviewers (ST/JT) pilot-tested the extraction template using five articles on coaching and physical activity that were not related to Special Olympics. An iterative approach was used to refine the extraction template based on the information found in the articles. The final Excel spreadsheet combined 20 categories, such as study design, research questions, participant-related details, significant outcomes or findings, and future research directions. Data from all articles were independently extracted by both reviewers (ST/JT), with an interrater agreement of 92.2%. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Results
Study characteristics
Table 1 presents a summary of the 16 studies included in our scoping review on coach practices and training or education 2 in the context of Special Olympics. These manuscripts include nine scientific articles published in peer-review journals, two conference papers (i.e., one peer-reviewed conference preceding and one conference paper), two research reports, two doctoral dissertations, and one masters’ thesis. A quantitative methodology was used in 11 instances. For the remaining manuscripts, four were qualitative in nature and 1 was categorized as mixed. Our sample included manuscripts from a large range of countries. Specifically, studies were conducted in the United States of America (USA; k = 5), Canada (k = 2), China (k = 1), England (k = 1), Romania (k = 1), Portugal (k = 1), the Czech Republic (k = 1), and Poland (k = 1). Two studies included participants from multiple countries (i.e., one study included participants from five countries and another from 19 countries). We were not able to identify the geographic origin of one study, but the authors specified that participants were athletes who competed in the Special Olympics world games and who spoke and understood German. Samples were comprised of Special Olympics athletes in five studies, Special Olympics coaches in six studies, and both Special Olympics athletes and coaches in five studies. Finally, regarding the main targeted outcomes related to Special Olympics coaches for our scoping review, three studies addressed coach training, seven addressed coach practices, and six measured outcomes pertaining to both coach practices and training. Results are presented in two sections: Coach Training and Coach Practices.
Results pertaining to coach training, coach practices, and athlete outcomes.
Note: SO = Special Olympics; ASSC = Autonomy Supportive Sport Climate; BNP = Basic Psychological Needs; SOC = Special Olympics Canada; TW = Team Wellness; SONP = Special Olympics National Programme; NGSB = National Governing Sport Bodies; SOI = Special Olympics International; NCACE = National Council for Accreditation of Coach Education.
Articles Identified Through Google Scholar. bGray Literature
Coach training
In all, nine studies discussed topics about coach training. The results of these studies can be categorized in three main topics: coaches’ sources of knowledge, coaches’ adherence to training, and athletes’ performance and skills as a function of coach training.
Coaches’ sources of knowledge
Coach knowledge was the topic most discussed in the articles pertaining to Special Olympics coach training (k = 7). Siperstein et al. 44 quantitatively assessed coaches’ sources of knowledge in a sample of 300 Special Olympics coaches from the USA who had an average of 13 years of experience coaching within this organization. Over 90% of coaches had formal coach training through Special Olympics or other sources (e.g., non-Special Olympics workshops, college courses). Three in five coaches also obtained certification specific to the sport they coached. Finally, the majority of coaches had some form of training in disability that was acquired through activities such as workshops (85%) or college courses (63%). Similar results were found by Harada et al. 45 in their replication of Siperstein et al.'s 44 study. Specifically, 94% of the 89 Chinese coaches reported having completed one or more forms of formal coach training. In another study by Hassan et al., 46 although they did not indicate proportions, the authors stated that most of the coaches in their sample (N = 25) were well qualified and experienced for working within the Unified Sports program. The three main sources of training were the general Special Olympics orientation training, the Special Olympics Sport-specific training, and the Unified Sports training. However, only 46% of the coaches reported having completed some form of training on the topic of ID. Beyond the specific assessment of formal training, two studies measured the broader array of coaches’ sources of coaching knowledge. In a quantitative study, 45 Canadian Special Olympics coaches were individually interviewed to identify their actual and ideal sources of knowledge. 47 Coaches reported that their main actual sources of coaching knowledge in the domain of training were non-formal: “learn by doing” (∼68%) and “coaching peers” (∼50%). These were also considered as their top two ideal sources of coaching knowledge, reported by ∼48% and ∼45% of coaches, respectfully. The highest-rated formal training reported was the completion of courses through the NCCP. Although 41 of the 45 coaches had completed some form of NCCP training, only ∼26% of the sample identified this type of training as an actual source of knowledge, whereas ∼35% of the sample identified it as an ideal source of knowledge. As a result, the NCCP training was ranked as the fourth most reported source of actual knowledge and the third most reported source of ideal knowledge. Similar results were reported for both the competition domain and the organization domain.
A recent quantitative study completed by Pires et al. 48 with 50 Portuguese Special Olympics coaches also examined coaches’ knowledge sources. Their sources of knowledge were measured using the Coaches’ Training Profile Questionnaire. 49 This questionnaire measures three types of sources of training: academic training, professional experience, and athlete experience (i.e., models and attitudes acquired through their personal athletic career). Formal training, specifically obtained through academic education, was the source of coaching knowledge with the highest average score, followed by professional experience and experience acquired through their personal athletic career. A majority of coaches (n = 36; 72%) had formal training in physical education and sport sciences, eight (16%) had disability training, and six (12%) had technical training. Another study on coach knowledge was completed by Ng 50 as part a Master's thesis. Specifically, the author investigated Special Olympics coaches’ sources of safety training, an important component of coaching knowledge. In all, six Special Olympics coaches from the Czech Republic completed a semi-structured interview. The participants reported that formal training, obtained through Special Olympics training courses or publications from other national governing bodies, was their main source of knowledge regarding safety practices and procedures. However, two of the six participants had no such certification. The coaches reported that formal first-aid as well as safety and risk management courses were important sources of coaches’ safety knowledge. Learning through experience was also considered a valuable source of safety knowledge. Finally, Albright 51 compared two forms of training (i.e., a practicum and a video module) for knowledge development on coaching bowling skills as part a Doctoral Dissertation. When compared to the control group, both training groups obtained significantly higher scores on the multiple-choice test. Of importance, the participants in the comparison group were not Special Olympics coaches. The analysis of variance comparing the test scores for both groups of training was non-significant, suggesting that coaches’ knowledge on coaching bowling skills were similar for the video training and the practicum training.
Coaches’ adherence to training
Only one study reported on coaches’ adherence to training. Specifically, the authors discussed the Team Wellness program, “a pilot-level program within Special Olympics designed to address a gap in health education including both non-sport specific physical activity and nutrition needs for Special Olympics Athletes” (pp.110–111). 52 In their qualitative study conducted in the USA, four certified Special Olympics coaches were interviewed as part of the Team Wellness program evaluation. According to these coaches, the training required to implement the 8-week program consists of having prior experience working with adults who have disabilities and having completed post-secondary fitness education. However, when questioned about implementation fidelity, most coaches reported not adhering to the written program or having made changes to the program due to low athlete participation and/or attendance. Although non-significant, coaches were not convinced that the program resulted in behavioral changes among participating athletes.
Athletes’ sport related performance and skills as a function of coach training
One study evaluated athlete performance as a function of coach training. Specifically, Powers and Putnam 53 found no significant difference in Special Olympics performances in competition between athletes who were coached by non-certified coaches and athletes whose coaches had received certified training. However, higher performance scores were observed for athletes in the latter group.
Coach practices
In all, 13 studies discussed topics about coach practices. The results of these studies can be categorized in three main topics: coaches’ safety practices, athletes’ life skills and personal development, and athletes’ performance as a function of coach practices. The section on athletes’ life skills and personal development included a variety of sub-topics. As such, this section was divided as follow: coaches’ intentions, coaches’ behaviors, and athletes’ outcomes.
Coaches’ safety practices
Creating a safe environment is essential for the sport setting to be indicative of athletes’ development (e.g., Bean et al.; 13 Camiré et al. 54 ). Through the use of semi-structured interviews, Ng 50 inquired on safety practices of six Special Olympics coaches from Czech Republic. Coaches reported experiencing certain safety issues within their practices. They acknowledged that there are several risk factors to consider when coaching SO athletes. Elements reported by the authors as important safety measures include: having an assistant coach during training sessions, having professional qualifications in sports coaching, having sufficient and appropriate equipment for athletes, ensuring a proper environment (e.g., ventilation, lighting) during practice sessions, and having a general safety plan for athletes. Of importance, experienced Special Olympics coaches rated the risk factors and safety aspects as more important than beginner Special Olympics coaches.
Athletes’ life skills and personal development
Coaches’ intentions
Sport can, and should, serve a learning environment that goes beyond physical development. 55 Coaches play a key role in the quality of the learning environment. One important factor for sport to lead to positive life skills and personal development outcomes for athletes is coaches’ intentionality. 13 Three studies identified that Special Olympics coaches intend to use practices that lead to such outcomes for their athletes. Hassan et al. 46 interviewed 25 Special Olympics coaches about their role in Unified Sports. Coaches reported that their main focus is coaching sports skills and promoting social interactions (i.e., friendships and teamwork). Moreover, Siperstein et al. 44 surveyed coaches about the goals set for their athletes. They found that the development of self-esteem and self-confidence was the top priority for 54% of the 300 Special Olympics USA coaches who completed the study. Sport skill development was the second highest-rate goal (13%), followed by developing friendships (12%), health outcomes (11%), and social skills development (10%). Harada et al. 45 replicated this study with a sample of 89 Chinese Special Olympics coaches whose main goal for their athletes was the development of social skills. The development of athletes’ self-esteem and self-confidence as well as having relationships with others were also reported as priorities. Of interest, these goals were all rated as higher priorities compared to athletes’ acquisition of sport skills.
Coaches’ behaviors
Regarding coach behaviors, mixed results were found. In two studies, athletes perceived that their coaches’ behaviors were not always adapted to their needs of self-determination and autonomy and that some coaches did not offer them adequate support for the development of life skills such as decision-making.56,57 In another study, coaches reported using practices that support the development of life skills such as adhering to a coaching philosophy that targets the use of sport for life skills development, allowing their athletes to utilize their skills, and making use of teachable moments. 58 Coaches self-reported practices were predominantly positive in nature, 56 a finding consistent with Sherlock-Shangraw's 59 study, in which positive correction, encouragement, and tactical/technical cues were ranked as coaches’ three most commonly employed practices. In another study, coach profiles measured using the Coaches’ Orientation Questionnaire 60 revealed that coaches’ practices were mainly classified as critical, followed by innovative and dialoguing. 48
Athletes’ outcomes
Athletes’ life skills and personal development outcomes were measured in three studies. First, nearly all 300 Special Olympics USA coaches stated observing that their athletes’ self-esteem and self-confidence, friendships, and social skills improved to some extent (i.e., a little or a lot) whilst under their supervision. 44 In Harada et al.'s 45 study, all coaches indicated that their athletes had somewhat or greatly progressed in terms of self-esteem and self-confidence. Results for friendship as well as social skills were omitted from the authors’ analyses due to insufficient data. Athletes’ and families’ perceptions of athlete improvement were also measured by Harada et al.. 45 Out of the 223 athletes who completed the questionnaire, at least 95% reported improvements (about 30% reported some improvement and about 60% reported a great deal of improvement) in self-esteem and self-confidence (i.e., “feeling good about yourself”) as well as in making friends. Families perceived either some improvement or a great deal of improvement in terms of their athlete's self-esteem and self-confidence, social skills, and relationships with others.
Only one study extracted for our scoping review assessed the direct relationship between coach practices and athlete personal development outcomes. Through the use of an observational cross-sectional design, Komenda et al. 61 found that coaches autonomy support behaviors positively and significantly predicted athletes’ life satisfaction. Moreover, coaches’ behaviors aimed at meeting their athletes’ basic psychological need of competence was found to significantly mediate this relationship, even after controlling for the type of sport (i.e., team or individual). In contrast, behaviors aimed at meeting athletes’ needs for autonomy and relatedness (i.e., two other basic psychological needs) did not act as mediators of the relationship between coaches’ autonomy support behaviors and athletes’ life satisfaction. It is important to note that these measures were reported by the 168 Special Olympics athletes who took part in this study, as opposed to the coaches themselves.
Athlete performance as a function of coach practices
Coaches also play a role in attaining the sport performance objectives stated within Special Olympics’ mission. 62 Three studies specifically discussed athletes’ performance. Harada et al. 45 and Siperstein et al. 44 reported that coaches observed improvements in their athletes’ sport skills. Coherently, parents and the athletes themselves also indicated observing similar progress. 44 However, it is important to note that these studies (i.e., Harada et al.; 45 Siperstein et al. 44 ) were purely observational in nature and that the athletes’ improvements were not directly assessed as a function of coaches’ practices, but rather as a result of athletes’ participation in Special Olympics. A study conducted by Luiselli 63 assessed the effect of different combinations of behavioral coaching practices (i.e., goal setting, performance feedback, positive reinforcement, and video modeling) on two Special Olympics track athletes’ performances. Specifically, the authors measured the time it took for both athletes to run a 100m sprint as well as their number of correct steps executed during the sprint (i.e., from standing behind the start line to running through the finish line). Out of the two participants, one's 100m sprint time decreased for each of the five intervention conditions compared to his average baseline time. Moreover, the different combinations of behavioral coaching practices increased the athlete's percentage of correct steps (related to a 100m sprint) from the baseline (58.3% correct). The second participant's 100m sprint was also faster in the intervention phases, but the gaps between his average baseline performance and the intervention phases were modest. As for the second participant's number of correctly executed steps, this value only increased for two of the five intervention phases, it remained the same for one intervention phase, and was lower for two intervention phases. However, it is important to note that the second participant's baseline mean of correctly performed steps was 83.3%, potentially causing a ceiling effect. Finally, Popescu et al. 64 reported that some of the most useful practices identified by the specialists to enhance athletes’ performance in gymnastics were the one-on-one method, the integration of a video or a game, and the imitation method. In their study, specialists implemented an individualized training program for a group of 24 gymnasts (12 with Down Syndrome and 12 non-disabled gymnasts). The authors concluded that the athlete training program was effective in enhancing the gymnasts’ performances, with improvements reported in attention, self-control, memorization, and execution abilities. However, these results should be interpreted with caution given that very little information is provided regarding the study's methodology.
Discussion
The aim of our scoping review was to use a systematic procedure to review the existing literature on Special Olympics coach training and practices to identify avenues for future research and intervention in the field. In all, 16 studies were included in our scoping review. Of these studies, nine included information on coach training and 13 included information on coach practices. Regarding coach training, the results from the three studies (i.e., Harada et al.; 45 MacDonald et al.; 47 Siperstein et al. 44 ) in which the prevalence of formally trained coaches was assessed reveal that almost all coaches (i.e., > 90%) had some form of formal coach training. This finding is encouraging given that a growing body of research supports the importance of coach training for athletes’ athletic and personal development.65,66 However, no study assessed the direct relationship or the effect of coach training on coaches’ practices or the indirect effect of coach training on their athletes’ sport performance or life skills and personal developmental outcomes. As such, there is no existing data to support the effectiveness of Special Olympics coaches formal training on these outcomes.
Evaluation of coach training programs is necessary to ensure that they are effective means for knowledge and behavior development and that coaches are prepared to adapt their coaching techniques to their athletes’ individual profiles. 67 Both implementation and impact evaluations should be conducted using a variety of measures (e.g., questionnaires, interviews, observations) at different time points (e.g., before, during, and after training sessions). 68 Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data collected with separate groups (e.g., athletes and coaches) should also be used to increase data validity. 69 Finally, mediation analyses should be conducted to examine the indirect effect of coach training on athlete outcomes, in which coaches’ behavior changes is the mediator. We suggest that this procedure be overseen by Special Olympics International to ensure that athletes across the globe have access to quality coaching and that the coach training programs offered to Special Olympics coaches do not systematically result in findings such as those reported by McCarty et al. 60 who stated that some coaches in their sample did not adhere to the program and did not believe that the training program had an effect on their athletes’ behaviors. These results also call for researchers and coach training developers to go beyond the traditional research and development methods that are generally applied (e.g., Santos et al. 70 ). As an example, the use of a participatory approach to the creation and evaluation of coach development materials could serve to “think outside the box” and perhaps create novel strategies that are more extrinsically motivating and better adapted to coaches’ pedagogical approaches and to the reality of their coaching environment.
Within our scoping review, we also extracted 13 studies that measured components of coach practices. Two studies reported improvements in athletes’ sport performances. However, due to the methodologies used, it is not possible to establish a direct relationship between coach's practices and athletes’ performances. Interestingly, we identified eight studies that assessed components related to the teaching of life skills. The results from four studies suggest that athletes’ development is a priority for coaches.44–46,58 Other studies found that coaches implemented practices that encouraged life skills development.57–59 However, some athletes interviewed in Dluzwwaska-Martyniez's 56 study stated that some Special Olympics coaches, although not intentionally, adopt behaviors that block their thletes' autonomy and decision-making; thus, limiting their life skills and personal development opportunities. Coaches in other studies reported observing positive changes in their athletes pertaining to different life skills (e.g., social skills, team work) and psychological outcomes (e.g., self-confidence).44,45 It is important to note that the majority of the studies only used self-reported measures to assess coaches’ behaviors and intentions of teaching their athletes life skills.44–46,57,58 Only one study measured coaches’ use of instructional behaviors with observational measures (i.e., Sherlock-Shangraw 59 ). Within this study, coaches had extensive coaching experience which could have positively influenced coaches’ practices regarding life skills teaching. 71 Not all Special Olympics coaches have extensive experience. As such, efforts must be taken to ensure that coaches at all levels of experience and training are qualified to support their athletes’ sport skills and life skills development.
Many sport organizations and resources have stated the importance of life skills development through sport (e.g., International Olympic Committee 4 ; Hockey Canada 72 ; Sport Information Resource Centre, 73 National Collegiate Athletic Association, 74 Special Olympics 75 ). Training Special Olympics coaches to include the teaching of life skills within their sport curriculums is especially important given that significant limitations in adaptive behaviors such as practical adaptive skills are inherent to the diagnostic of ID.22,76,77 As many researchers support that persons with an ID can experience positive functional gains through life skills training programs (e.g., Alwell & Cobb 78 ; Behroz-Sarcheshmeh et al. 79 ), Special Olympics key stakeholders and researchers need to work together to enable coaches to be adequately trained in order to “[…] enrich the lives of [their] athletes in many life-changing ways. [As] the skills and confidence that an athlete learns through sports have a long and lasting effect. They can help them succeed in school, get a job and find confidence in social situations and in life.” (para. 3). 62
Limitations and future directions
While this scoping review is the first to provide an overview of research on Special Olympics’ coach training and practices, there are important limitations to consider. First, studies included in the review vary in terms of methodological quality. Out of the 16 studies retrieved, none used a randomized control trial. Although some studies used more rigorous designs, others (k = 3) were published without a peer-review process or included little information about the study's methodology. Research must be conducted with more sound methodologies, including, but not restricted to RCTs, as such a research design, while increasing the external validity of the findings, can only answer a limited number of research questions (e.g., RCTs can help assess the effectiveness of a coach training program, but do not enable us to understand the needs of coaches in terms of training). As such, researchers must also explore how the use of unconventional methods could reshape our way or portraying coach development. As an example, longitudinal mixed method studies in which coaches and athletes fully participate in developing, implementing, testing, and adjusting coach development materials would be of high value. Second, many researchers based their results on descriptive statistics or only used self-reported questionnaires to assess variables of interest. Given that coaches are being questioned about their current and/or future practices, they may have answered questions according to what is expected of them rather than their actual practices (i.e., social desirability bias). Future studies should use multi-informant and multi-method approaches to control for potential threats to the validity of the findings. Although, findings pertaining to coaches’ goals are promising, coaches’ intentions will not necessarily result in action. Future studies should directly assess the relationship between coach training, knowledge development, and coaches’ behaviors using path or mediation analyses. Third, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results, as most of the studies were conducted with small samples and as certain themes covered in this review are supported by results from only one or two studies. Moreover, coaches’ profiles were not always specified throughout the reviewed studies, which may explain differences in results. Importantly, in many countries across the globe, Special Olympics programs rely heavily on volunteer coaches who are often family members of athletes. Additionally, some coaches work with a variety of populations within the parasport context and invest few hours or have sporadic contracts for coaching Special Olympics. These factors must be considered in future studies when developing and evaluating the effectiveness of coach training and practices in the context of Special Olympics. Research was also predominantly conducted in the USA, where there are specific requirements for Special Olympics training and coaching, which may differ across countries. Other future research objectives should include: 1) evaluating certification programs in a variety of countries, 2) exploring coaches’ needs for ongoing training and 3) assessing coaches’ competencies for coaching and working with Special Olympics populations.
Conclusion
Results from our scoping review highlight that research within the field of coach training and practices in the context of Special Olympics is limited and of poor methodological quality. It is important to pursue research in this field to confirm whether coach training (formal or informal) is an effective means to promote their coaching practices and their Special Olympics athletes’ development. Research beyond the Special Olympics setting has consistently supported the potential of sport for positive development and suggested that coaches play an important role in achieving such outcomes. Therefore, the main conclusion from this study is that there is an urgent need for quality research within the field of Special Olympics coaches’ training and practices to ensure that the environment optimizes athletes’ experience and positive developmental outcomes.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge Dominic Desaulniers, librarian for the Université de Montréal, for his contribution to the development of the search methodology of the Scoping review as well as for reviewing the Method section of the article.
Notes on contributors
The research team who conducted the scoping review was composed of individuals with diverse backgrounds and varying levels of research experience. Stéphanie Turgeon is an assistant a professor at the Université du Québec en Outaouais who studies physical activity, exercise, and sport as a developmental context for different populations including individuals with an intellectual disability. Jessica Turgeon is a PhD candidate at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. Although she does not have an expertise in sport or intellectual disability, she has recently led and published a systematic review as second author and a scoping review as first author. Finally, Diane Morin is a full professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Her research experience combined with her dual expertise in program evaluation and intellectual disability and continuous implication on the board of directors of Special Olympics Québec were assets for completing this scoping review.
Declaration of competing interest
The author(s) would like to declare that the third author (DM) is on the Board of directors of Special Olympics Québec (SOQ), Canada. The authors wish to state that they do not consider that they are in a position of conflict of interest as this paper was conducted independently of SOQ.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Universtié du Québec en Outaouais, (grant number FIRC-DEM-345674).