The purpose of this study was to verify the structural relationship among trust in coach, coach–athlete fit, and coach–athlete relationship. It verified the mediating effect trust in coach on relationships, in relation to coach–athlete fit and coach–athlete relationship. A total of 190 soccer players (N = 190, male; 135, female; 55) registered with the Korea Football Association responded to the survey; and their career in soccer about 6.8 years. Data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, structural equation modeling. As expected, coach–athlete fit and trust in coach were significantly related to coach–athlete relationship; in addition, the structural relationship among the three variables was significant. Finally, mediating effect of trust in coach between coach–athlete fit and coach–athlete relationship was showed significantly.
JowettSCockerillIM. Olympic medallists’ perspective of the althlete–coach relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc2003; 4: 313–331.
2.
JowettSWyllemanP. Interpersonal relationships in sport and exercise settings: crossing the chasm. Psychol Sport Exerc2006; 2: 119–123.
3.
PhilippeRASeilerR. Closeness, co-orientation and complementarity in coach–athlete relationships: what male swimmers say about their male coaches. Psychol Sport Exerc2006; 7: 159–171.
4.
PoczwardowskiABarottJEJowettS. Diversifying approaches to research on athlete–coach relationships. Psychol Sport Exerc2006; 7: 125–142.
5.
JowettSAdieJWBartholomewKJ, et al.Motivational processes in the coach-athlete relationship: a multi-cultural self-determination approach. Psychol Sport Exerc2017; 32: 143–152.
6.
Isoard-GautheurSTrouilloudDGustafssonH, et al.Associations between the perceived quality of the coach–athlete relationship and athlete burnout: an examination of the mediating role of achievement goals. Psychol Sport Exerc2016; 22: 210–217.
7.
DavisLApplebyRDavisP, et al.The role of coach-athlete relationship quality in team sport athletes’ psychophysiological exhaustion: implications for physical and cognitive performance. J Sports Sci2018; 36: 1985–1992.
8.
VellaSAOadesLGCroweTP. The relationship between coach leadership, the coach–athlete relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy2013; 18: 549–561.
9.
ShortSEShortMW. Essay: role of the coach in the coach-athlete relationship. Lancet2005; 366: S29–S30.
10.
LaVoiNM. Expanding the interpersonal dimension: closeness in the coach-athlete relationship. Int J Sports Sci Coach2007; 2: 497–512.
11.
ChelladuraiP.Leadership in sports. 2007.
12.
SmollFLSmithRE. Leadership behaviors in sport: a theoretical model and research paradigm 1. J Appl Soc Psychol1989; 19: 1522–1551.
13.
HornT. Coaching effectiveness in sport domain: advances in sport psychology. J Psychol2002; 7: 134–149.
14.
KristofAL. Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Pers Psychol1996; 49: 1–49.
15.
ChoiM-RKimB-J. Athlete-coach behavior fit as a predictor of athletes’ intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Kor J Sport Psychol2008; 19: 169–184.
16.
ChoiM-RKimB-J. Test of a proposed conceptual model on behavior fit between coaches and athletes. Kor J Phys Edu2011; 50: 45–56.
17.
ChatmanJCaldwellDF. People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad Manage J1991; 34: 487–516.
18.
VancouverJBSchmittNW. An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: organizational goal congruence. Pers Psychol1991; 44: 333–352.
19.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev1995; 20: 709–734.
20.
McAllisterDJ. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J1995; 38: 24–59.
21.
DirksKT. Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 1004.
22.
MachMDolanSTzafrirS. The differential effect of team members’ trust on team performance: the mediation role of team cohesion. J Occup Organ Psychol2010; 83: 771–794.
23.
GraenGNovakMASommerkampP. The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organ Behav Hum Perform1982; 30: 109–131.
24.
ElsassP. Trust and team performance in NCAA basketball. Acad Manag Perspect2001; 15: 137–138.
25.
BeattieMATurnerBA. The impact of athlete-coach fit on the athletic satisfaction of NCAA division II college athletes. J Study Sports Athletes Edu2022: 1–17.
26.
JowettSNtoumanisN. The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports2004; 14: 245–257.
27.
O'ReillyCAIIIChatmanJCaldwellDF. People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad Manage J1991; 34: 487–516.
JowettSCarpenterP. The concept of rules in the coach-athlete relationship. Sports Coach Rev2015; 4: 1–23.
30.
BanduraCTKavussanuM. Authentic leadership in sport: its relationship with athletes’ enjoyment and commitment and the mediating role of autonomy and trust. Int J Sports Sci Coach2018; 13: 968–977.
31.
KaoS-FHsiehM-HLeeP-L. Coaching competency and trust in coach in sport teams. Int J Sports Sci Coach2017; 12: 319–327.
32.
GraenGBUhl-BienM. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh Q1995; 6: 219–247.
33.
BennisW. Executive excellence: Leading change. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, 1995.
34.
BeakK-KLeeJ-HKimH-S. The relationships among satisfaction on performance, trust in leader and degree of athlete-coach's strategic consensus in short track race. Korean J Phys Edu2005; 44: 575–583.
