Two studies were conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the French athlete version of the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (Fr-CART-Q) among two independent samples of French athletes. Study 1 evaluated the reliability, factorial structure, and convergent, discriminant, and criterion validities of this scale among 442 French athletes (65.8% men; Mage = 21.66, SD = 4.82) involved in various sports. Study 2 investigated the same psychometric properties, as well as temporal invariance, among a specific sample of 286 adolescent handball players (58.4% men; Mage =15.39 years, SD = 1.01) involved in intensive training centers. Both studies reveal that the psychometric properties of the Fr-CART-Q are satisfactory. Reliability indices and factorial structures confirm the multidimensional and hierarchical structure of the Fr-CART-Q. Temporial invariance analysis reveals that the factorial structure of this scale remains consistent over time. Criterion validity is satisfactory and the quality of the coach-athlete relationship is positively associated with athletes’ perceived competence. Overall, these two studies indicate that the Fr-CART-Q can be used with French athletes.
JowettSCockerillIM. Olympic medallists’ perspective of the althlete–coach relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc2003; 4: 313–331.
2.
JowettS. Interdependence analysis and the 3+1Cs in the coach-athlete relationship. In: JowettSLavalleeD (eds) Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL, US: Human Kinetics, 2007, pp.15–27.
3.
McShanKMooreEWG. Systematic review of the coach–athlete relationship from the coaches’ perspective. Kinesiol Rev2023; 12: 158–173.
4.
RouxVTrouilloudD. Vers une meilleure compréhension de la relation entraîneur-entraîné(s) : une revue systématique de la littérature issue du modèle des 3+1Cs. Mov Sport Sci - Sci Mot2021; 4: 29–49.
5.
JowettS. 25 Years of relationship research in sport: the quality of the coach-athlete relationship as defined by closeness, commitment, complementarity and co-orientation (3+1Cs). Psychol Sport Exerc2025; 80: 102909.
6.
JowettSPoczwardowskiA. Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In: JowettSLavalleeD (eds) Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL, US: Human Kinetics, 2007, pp.15–27.
7.
JowettSNtoumanisN. The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports2004; 14: 245–257.
8.
JowettSNicolasMYangS. Unravelling the links between coach behaviours and coach-athlete relationships. Eur J Sports Exerc Sci2017; 5: 10–19.
9.
BalduckA-LJowettS. Psychometric properties of the Belgian coach version of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): validation of the Belgian coach CART-Q. Scand J Med Sci Sports2010; 20: 779–786.
10.
Roberto De Andrade Do Nascimento JuniorJMorais FreireGLRibeiro ContreiraA, et al.Psychometric properties of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q) in a sample of Brazilian youth and adult athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach2024; 19: 5–18.
11.
AhmadHAdaENJowettS, et al.The validation of direct and meta versions of the coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (ArCART-Q) in the arabic language: their relationship to athlete’s satisfaction with individual performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 1998.
12.
JelleliHHindawiOKaddechN, et al.Reliability and validity of the arabic version of coach-athlete relationship questionnaire: ACART-Q. Cogent Soc Sci2023; 9: 2282275.
13.
ContreiraARAndrade Do Nascimento JuniorJRPizzoGC, et al.Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the coach–athlete relationship questionnaire for coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach2019; 14: 285–293.
14.
VieiraLFNascimento JuniorJRADPujalsC, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q)-athlete version. Rev Bras Cineantropometria E Desempenho Hum2015; 17: 635.
15.
YangSXJowettS. Psychometric properties of the coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q) in seven countries. Psychol Sport Exerc2012; 13: 36–43.
16.
SahinMYFiratBFSezerP. Coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q) for use with Deaf athletes: Validity and reliability study. Ambient Sci2020; 7: 270–274.
17.
BalduckA-LJowettSBuelensM. Factorial and predictive validity of the Belgian (Dutch) athlete version of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Int J Sport Psychol2011; 42: 204–226.
18.
JowettSNtoumanisN. The Greek coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (Gr CART-Q): scale construction and validation. Int J Sport Psychol2003; 34: 101–124.
19.
KovácsKDóraK-GFöldiR, et al.Az edzői viselkedés kérdőív hazai adaptációja. Mentálhig És Pszichoszomatika2021; 22: 261–280.
20.
KimKParkJ. Structural validation of the Korean version of coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (KrCART-Q). Korean J Phys Educ2008; 47: 219–233.
21.
KuanGTxiMRSSallehFNM, et al.Psychometric properties of the malay version of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire for coaches and athletes. Malays J Med Sci MJMS2024; 31: 241–251.
22.
MichalakAPoczwardowskiA. Kwestionariusz do badania relacji trener-zawodnik (CART-Q): polska adaptacja (PlCART-Q). Testy Psychol W Prakt Badaniach2015; 1: 62–75.
23.
PinhoAMonteiroDJacintoM, et al.Initial validation of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire in a sample of Portuguese athletes. Percept Mot Skills2024; 131: 1360–1377.
24.
BalzadehANikbakhshRTojariF. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the meta-perspective (3+1Cs) coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Sport Psychol Stud2019; 8: 51–68.
25.
Sanz-FernándezCAlonso-ArbiolIPérez-AlbenizA. The coach-athlete relationship: Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the CART-Q. Rev Multidiscip Las Cienc Deporte2023; 23.
26.
AltıntaşAÇetinkalpZKAşçıFH. Antrenör-sporcu ilişkisinin değerlendirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalişmasi. Spor Bilim Derg2012; 23: 119–128.
27.
CombeauEDebanneT. Relation entraîneur–athlète et style interpersonnel de l’entraîneur en contexte précompétitif, quels liens avec la performance ? une étude basée sur le modèle motivationnel de la relation entraîneur–athlète. Mov Sport Sci - Sci Mot2020; 3: 51–63.
28.
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.
29.
RouxVMartinentGTrouilloudD. Temporal dynamics of the quality of the coach-athlete relationship over one season among adolescent handball players: a latent class analysis approach. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2023; 21: 1107–1124.
30.
FlakeJKPekJHehmanE. Construct validation in social and personality research: current practice and recommendations. Soc Psychol Personal Sci2017; 8: 370–378.
31.
MilfontTLFischerR. Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res2010; 3: 111–130.
32.
DeSimoneJA. New techniques for evaluating temporal consistency. Organ Res Methods2015; 18: 133–152.
33.
YangSXJowettS. Conceptual and measurement issues of the complementarity dimension of the coach–athlete relationship across cultures. Psychol Sport Exerc2013; 14: 830–841.
34.
VallerandRJ. Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: implications pour la recherche en langue française. Can Psychol Psychol Can1989; 30: 662–680.
35.
JacksonBGroveJRBeauchampMR. Relational efficacy beliefs and relationship quality within coach-athlete dyads. J Soc Pers Relatsh2010; 27: 1035–1050.
36.
JowettS. Moderator and mediator effects of the association between the quality of the coach-athlete relationship and athletes’ physical self-concept. Int J Coach Sci2008; 2: 1–20.
37.
StephenSAHabeebCMArthurCA. Congruence of efficacy beliefs on the coach-athlete relationship and athlete anxiety: athlete self-efficacy and coach estimation of athlete self-efficacy. Psychol Sport Exerc2022; 58: 102062.
38.
JowettSCramerD. The prediction of young athletes’ physical self from perceptions of relationships with parents and coaches. Psychol Sport Exerc2010; 11: 140–147.
39.
SarrazinPTrouilloudDBoisJ. Attentes du superviseur et performance sportive du pratiquant. Amplitude et fonctionnement de l’effet pygmallon en contexte sportif. Bull Psychol2005; 475: 63–68.
40.
TrouilloudDAmielC. Reflected appraisals of coaches, parents and teammates: a key component of athletes’ self?Int J Sport Psychol2011; 42: 97–114.
41.
CronbachLJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika1951; 16: 297–334.
42.
McDonaldRP. Test theory: A unified treatment. 0 ed. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press, 1999.
43.
NunnallyJBernsteinI. Psychometric theory. 3r ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
44.
BonettDGWoodwardJARandallRL. Estimating p-values for mardia’s coefficients of multivariate skewness and kurtosis. Comput Stat2002; 17: 117–122.
45.
DiStefanoCMorganGB. A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J2014; 21: 425–438.
46.
LiC-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods2016; 48: 936–949.
47.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al.Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2009.
48.
RönkköMChoE. An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organ Res Methods2022; 25: 6–14.
49.
LiFHarmerP. Confirmatory factor analysis of the group environment questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. J Sport Exerc Psychol1996; 18: 49–63.
50.
ZumboBD. Structural equation modeling and test validation. In: EverittBSHowellDC (eds) Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Chichester: Wiley, 2005, pp.1951–1958.
51.
R Core Team. R:A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical. R Found Stat Comput2021. https://www.R-project.org/.
52.
RosseelY. Lavaan : An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw2012; 48: 1–36.
53.
MarshHW. The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. J Educ Meas1987; 24: 17–39.
54.
WoolliamsDSpencerKWaltersS, et al.Resolving uncertainties of the factor structures of the coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Aust J Psychol2021; 73: 212–222.
55.
JowettSClark-CarterD. Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach–athlete relationship. Br J Soc Psychol2006; 45: 617–637.
56.
HirschfeldGBrachelRv. Improving multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis in R – A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Pract Assess Res Eval2014; 19: 1–12.
57.
DimitrovDM. Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Meas Eval Couns Dev2010; 43: 121–149.
58.
SandströmELinnérLStambulovaN. Career profiles of athlete–coach relationships: descriptions and interpretations. Int J Sports Sci Coach2016; 11: 395–409.
59.
JowettSNezlekJ. Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important outcomes in coach–athlete dyads. J Soc Pers Relatsh2012; 29: 287–301.
60.
AdaENAhmadHUzunNB, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation of the turkish and Kuwaiti teacher–student relationship questionnaire in physical education (TSRQ- PE teacher version): testing for measurement invariance. Sustainability2021; 13: 1387.
