Basic psychological need support,need satisfaction,and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) has been widely applied in sports coaching research, encompassing both basic psychological need (BPN)–supportive (bright side) and BPN–thwarting (dark side) coaching behaviours. This paper focuses on the bright side by systematically reviewing and meta-analysing SDT-based studies investigating coaches’ and athletes’ positive experiences of BPN support, BPN satisfaction, and autonomous motivation. The findings are synthesised into a coherent and circular framework linking coaches’ BPN support, athletes’ BPN satisfaction, athletes’ autonomous motivation, coaches’ BPN satisfaction, and coaches’ autonomous motivation. Our meta-analysis, based on literature up to January 2025, included 102 studies and analysed 339 correlations from 120 independent samples (N = 43,675). The results revealed significant effect sizes for the relationships between coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (r = .47), athletes’ BPN satisfaction and athletes’ autonomous motivation (r = .37), athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction (r = .35), coaches’ BPN satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation (r = .38), and coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support (r = .41). These findings, derived from studies relying on individual-level data (either coaches’ or athletes’ data), suggest an interconnected nature of coaching dynamics within the coaching relationship. We discuss the limitations of our systematic review and propose critical directions for future research. Our main conclusion highlights the strong need for dyadic-level research to better understand the reciprocal nature of coach-athlete relationships.

Keywords

Competence dyad interpersonal behaviour relatedness self-determination

Self-Determination Theory (SDT¹) has become a key framework for researchers investigating the psychological foundations of high-quality motivation in sports coaching. The core objectives of coaching align with SDT’s organismic perspective, which emphasises self-development as a primary focus.² According to SDT, individuals have an inherent tendency to engage with their environment in ways that satisfy their Basic Psychological Needs (BPNs), which in turn develop autonomous motivation—a form of motivation driven by internalised goals and a sense of volition.³ In recent years, the volume of empirical research applying SDT within the context of sports coaching has expanded significantly, particularly in studies examining BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation in athletes and coaches.⁴

However, to date, no systematic review or meta-analysis has examined both the intrapersonal and interpersonal experiences of coaches and athletes regarding BPN support, BPN satisfaction, and autonomous motivation. Furthermore, existing studies in this field have relied solely on individual-level data rather than exploring dyadic-level data. In other words, prior research has focused on either coaches’ or athletes’ experiences and outcomes in isolation. Foundational accounts of the coach-athlete relationship include Mageau and Vallerand’s motivational model, which has significantly shaped the field by detailing how BPN-supportive coaching relates to athletes’ BPN satisfaction and motivation.⁵ Building on this foundation, subsequent work has encouraged greater attention to not only athletes’ but also coaches’ outcomes, emphasising more dyadic interdependence, temporal reciprocity, and contextual sensitivity.^6–9

As coaches and athletes must collaborate to achieve not only individual goals but also shared relational goals, the quality of the relationship is central to understanding motivational processes.^10,11 Jowett’s 3 + 1Cs model also emphasises that closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation are essential in establishing an effective and strong partnership.¹² Such a dynamic and intricate interpersonal relationship has a significant impact on athletes’ development, success, and well-being.¹³ Within SDT, the relationships motivation theory further underscores that close relationships are crucial contexts for satisfying BPNs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.¹⁴

SDT-based sports coaching research has predominantly focused on BPN-supportive (bright side) coaching behaviours compared with BPN-thwarting (dark side) behaviours.^15–18 Given the scope and consistency of the available evidence, this paper purposefully concentrates on the bright side to offer a clear and coherent synthesis of SDT-based studies investigating coaches’ and athletes’ positive experiences of BPN support, BPN satisfaction, and autonomous motivation by systematically reviewing and meta-analysing the empirical evidence. Recognising the inherently interconnected nature of the coach-athlete dynamic, we propose a circular framework (see Figure 1) that explores the interdependent relationships between (a) coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction, (b) athletes’ BPN satisfaction and athletes’ autonomous motivation, (c) athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction, (d) coaches’ BPN satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation, and (e) coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support. It is important to note that this sequence does not imply that coaches’ BPN support is the starting point of the process. In the following sections, we will examine each path in the circular framework in more detail.

Figure 1.

Circular conceptual framework of the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (path a)

Spence and Oades provided comprehensive guidelines on “how to coach with self-determination theory in mind”.¹⁹ They emphasised that coaches should not only recognise their athletes’ strengths, attitudes, skills, and mindsets but also prioritise supporting their BPNs. Through the lens of SDT, healthy human development is facilitated by continuous social support.²⁰ Therefore, coaches adopting an SDT perspective should intentionally cultivate an environment that supports their athletes’ BPNs through meaningful interactions.²¹ In the context of SDT, the satisfaction of three BPNs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, is considered essential for promoting autonomous motivation (i.e., paths b and d; see the following section).²² Specifically, autonomy refers to the need to act in alignment with one’s interests, values, and personal choices. Competence refers to the need to engage in meaningful challenges and attain mastery. Relatedness refers to the need to build meaningful interpersonal connections.²²

Autonomy-supportive behaviours exhibited by a coach imply providing meaningful choices, offering the rationale for decisions and recommendations, acknowledging athletes’ opinions and feelings, and supporting their initiative in personal development.²³ When coaches satisfy athletes’ need for autonomy, athletes feel empowered to express ideas and opinions, experiencing authenticity, a sense of volition, and psychological freedom.²⁴ Competence-supportive behaviours exhibited by a coach imply offering athletes optimal challenges, encouragement, clear guidance and expectations during task execution, as well as specific and motivational feedback.^22,25 When coaches satisfy athletes’ need for competence, athletes are more likely to find tasks intrinsically rewarding and feel capable of handling difficult challenges.²⁴ Relatedness-supportive behaviours exhibited by a coach imply being accessible, expressing authentic concern for their athletes’ well-being, and fostering a sense of security, particularly during challenging times. When coaches satisfy athletes’ need for relatedness, athletes feel valued, experience a deep sense of connection, and develop a stronger sense of belonging within the coach-athlete relationship.^22,24

Coaches’ and athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation (paths b and d)

SDT posits that across demographics, psychological characteristics, and cultural contexts, BPN satisfaction fosters autonomous motivation for both athletes (path b) and coaches (path d).^17,26 Autonomous motivation refers to self-initiated and self-regulated behaviours driven by personal interest and enjoyment of the activity. Individuals with high levels of autonomous motivation perceive their actions as self-chosen, experience a sense of connectedness with others, and feel competent in pursuing their goals—reflecting the satisfaction of the three BPNs.²² A central empirical claim of SDT is that autonomous motivation is strongly linked to key outcomes such as persistence, well-being, effective performance, perceived meaningfulness, and vitality—outcomes that are especially critical for athletes and their coaches.^4,27,28

Athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction (path c)

The coach-athlete relationship is characterised by the mutual interconnection of their emotions, thoughts, and behaviours.⁶ This dynamic reflects the inherent interdependence between coaches and athletes, as they rely on one another to achieve both individual and shared goals, enhance performance, and fully realise their potential.^10,11 The motivational experiences of both coaches and athletes are not solely influenced by their own actions but are also shaped by the behaviours and motivational states of other key individuals within their coaching environment.²⁹ Research within the framework of SDT has identified that one critical contextual factor is perceived athletes’ autonomous motivation, which is positively associated with coaches’ BPN satisfaction in the coaching process (path c).⁷ SDT posits that contextual factors impact motivation for a specific activity through the extent to which BPNs are satisfied.⁴ Consistent with this proposition, research has demonstrated that coaches’ BPN satisfaction mediates the relationship between athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ (paths c and d).⁸

Coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support (path e)

SDT research has identified coaches’ autonomous motivation as an important determinant of their BPN support (path e).^30,31 Coaches with high levels of autonomous motivation experience a sense of choice, personal endorsement, interest, and fulfilment. As a result, they are more likely to invest additional time in their athletes, adopt a BPN-supportive interpersonal style, and contribute to a supportive climate to fulfil their athletes’ BPNs.³² Furthermore, research suggests that factors within the coaching environment, such as athletes’ autonomous motivation, influence coaches’ own BPN satisfaction, which subsequently enhances their autonomous motivation and promotes BPN-supportive behaviours towards athletes (paths c, d, and e).⁸ Additionally, across various social contexts, autonomous motivation has consistently been shown to mediate the relationship between BPN satisfaction and BPN-supportive behaviour.^7,31,33

Hypotheses

Based on our circular framework (see Figure 1), we hypothesised positive relationships between:

H1: Coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (path a).

H2: Athletes’ BPN satisfaction and their own autonomous motivation (path b).

H3: Athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction (path c).

H4: Coaches’ BPN satisfaction and their own autonomous motivation (path d).

H5: Coaches’ autonomous motivation and their own BPN support (path e).

Due to the lack of dyadic studies, we tested these five hypotheses exclusively using existing individual-level data. Our main goal, however, is to identify gaps in the extant literature on the “bright side” (i.e., BPN support and autonomous motivation) of the SDT framework and establish a clear agenda for future dyadic-level research.

Method

Systematic literature search

The present study was conducted in accordance with the recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).³⁴ To initiate the review, we sourced relevant records from four electronic databases: PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science, encompassing articles published from 1990 to January 2025. We conducted searches across these four databases to ensure broad and multidisciplinary coverage. A scoping analysis indicated that including additional databases yielded no unique eligible records beyond these four, while substantially increasing duplication and screening burden. These databases collectively provide comprehensive coverage of the psychological, educational, and sport science literatures, which constitute the main disciplinary domains of SDT-based coaching research. To minimise the risk of omission, we also conducted extensive backwards and forward citation tracking and hand-searched key journals, procedures shown to identify records unique to more specialised databases. This strategy ensured an appropriate balance between sensitivity, transparency, and feasibility, with no evidence that expanding databases would have materially increased coverage.

The databases were searched using combinations of four groups of primary terms, adding Boolean operators (OR and/or AND) to combine them: (a) <coach>, AND (b) <sport>or <exercise>, AND (c) <self-determination>, AND (d) <psychological need>or <autonomy>or <competence>or <relatedness>or < autonomous motivation>or < intrinsic motivation>or < self-determined motivation>. The subject areas were limited to psychology and sports science. Notably, we required the primary search term <coach>to ensure the retrieval of studies situated within a coaching context. We did not include <athlete>as a mandatory search term because many relevant studies describe the coached individual using alternative labels (e.g., “pupil”), which could have resulted in unnecessary exclusions. Further operational details are provided in the Eligibility Criteria section below.

A total of 2820 articles were identified in the first round of the search, and 290 relevant articles were retained after removing duplicates. These articles were then screened by reviewing their titles, and those fitting the inclusion criteria (specified below) were further assessed by reading the abstracts and keywords. From this process, 121 articles were rejected due to irrelevance, leaving 169 articles for full-text examination. Of these, 69 articles were eliminated based on the eligibility criteria (also specified below), resulting in 104 articles. To locate potential additional literature, we examined the reference lists of all retrieved articles that met our eligibility criteria. This phase included reviewing references in previous SDT-based systematic reviews to cross-check our search results. Two additional articles were included via citation searching from prior meta-analyses.^17,35 The final step involved checking the 106 articles for duplication across samples, as duplicated samples in meta-analysis led to inflated effect sizes and violated the assumption of statistical independence.³⁶ Four articles were excluded because they used the same data set and reported the same effect sizes as in previously (un)published studies. This resulted in a set of 102 articles. For further details on the selection process, refer to the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

PRISMA flow-chart describing the selection process in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eligibility criteria

We aimed to include all empirical articles investigating BPN-supportive coaching based on the tenets of SDT, with a focus on improving BPN satisfaction and motivation for coaches and/or athletes. Specifically, studies were eligible if they met the following criteria:

Empirical, quantitative research grounded in the SDT framework and conducted within the context of sports coaching.

Report at least one direct relationship between (a) coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction; (b) athletes’ BPN satisfaction and athletes’ autonomous motivation; (c) athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction; (d) coaches’ BPN satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation; (e) coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support (see Figure 1).

For all paths, include at least one SDT-based BPN construct (autonomy, competence, relatedness, or BPN in general).

For relevant paths (i.e., paths b through e), include at least one SDT-based motivation construct (i.e., autonomous motivation, intrinsic motivation, or a self-determined motivation index).

Demonstrated moderate to high methodological quality, with no studies classified as low quality.

We conducted a comprehensive assessment of the quality and potential bias of the included articles by using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quantitative Analytical Studies.³⁷ A detailed quality assessment procedure, along with results for both overall study quality and each analytical path, is provided in Appendix A. No studies were categorised as low quality, and therefore, no articles were excluded based on quality criteria. Following this rigorous quality evaluation, 102 articles (96 of which were published) were finalised for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

To ensure a comprehensive view and minimise publication bias, we included both published journal articles and unpublished doctoral dissertations. However, studies that used only qualitative approaches, without any quantitative data, were excluded. In cases of longitudinal analyses, only the effect size based on Time 1 data was considered. Lastly, if an article reported results from multiple independent samples, each sample was included in the meta-analysis to ensure a representative analysis. See a detailed data coding process in Appendix B.

Statistical analyses

Pearson correlation coefficients were extracted as the effect parameters in this meta-analysis, and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA, Version 3, 2021) was used to analyse the data. Specifically, random-effect meta-analyses were performed, estimating mean effect sizes under the assumption that either study artefacts or moderating factors cause effect-size variability. This means the true effects in the studies are assumed to vary between studies, and the summary effect is the weighted average of the effects reported in the different studies.³⁸ Random-effect models are known to lead to more accurate and generalisable population effect size estimates than fixed-effect models, which assume homogeneity of effect parameters—an assumption that is unlikely to hold in applied settings.^36,39 Furthermore, random-effect meta-analyses tend to generate more conservative and realistic confidence intervals (CIs).^39–41 Therefore, we used a 95% CI to evaluate the sample-size weighted correlation (r).

The heterogeneity of the correlation coefficients was tested using Cochran’s Q and quantified using the I² index. In particular, Cochran’s Q was used to evaluate whether the dispersion of the correlation coefficients was significant. When the p-value of Cochran’s Q (p_Q) was larger than 0.1, heterogeneity was considered small; in these cases, the fixed-effect model was used for the combination of effect sizes. Otherwise, the random-effect model was employed to compute the meta-analysis.⁴² Additionally, the I² value estimates the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance; in other words, it quantifies variation not explained by sampling error or measurement error.⁴³

Finally, publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.⁴⁴ In the absence of publication bias, the plot should resemble a symmetric inverted funnel. By contrast, publication bias results in an asymmetry of the funnel plot; namely, the bottom of the plot would show a higher concentration of studies on one side of the mean than on the other. Egger’s regression test specifically examines this asymmetry in the funnel plot by using precision (the inverse of the standard error) to predict the standardised effect (effect size divided by the standard error).⁴⁵ If the p-value of the intercept is .05 or smaller, the asymmetry is considered statistically significant. In line with statistical recommendations, at least five studies are required to examine publication bias.⁴⁶

Results

A total of 102 articles (N _{coach paper} = 17, N _{athlete paper} = 82, N _both = 3) were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis, encompassing a database of 339 correlations. These studies, published between 2004 and January 2025, rely exclusively on individual-level data. The number of samples examined in each article ranged from one to five, depending on factors such as sports types. In total, 120 samples, comprising 43,675 participants (N _coach = 6341; N _athlete = 37,334), were recruited. The mean ages of coaches ranged from 19.85 to 47.01 years, while the mean ages of athletes ranged from 12.10 to 44.26 years. Both coaches and athletes participated in various types of sports (i.e., team, individual, or mixed sports) or specific sports (e.g., basketball, football, gymnastics, hockey, futsal, swimming, and water polo). Most studies applied a cross-sectional design (n = 84) rather than a longitudinal design (n = 18).

Table 1 presents the meta-analytic correlations of the five direct relationships: coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (path a); athletes’ BPN satisfaction and athletes’ autonomous motivation (path b); athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction (path c); coaches’ BPN satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation (path d); coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support (path e). Paths a, b, d, and e examined both general BPN and specific BPN types (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Path c, however, only examined the general BPN due to a lack of studies on specific BPN types. In total, 17 specific relationships were examined in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Appendix C summarises the selected papers included in the present meta-analysis for paths a, b, c, d, and e, respectively.

Table 1.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of self-determination relationships for both coaches and athletes.

Relationships	k ^a	N	r_c	95%CI	p	Q	p_Q	I²(%)
Path a: Coaches’ BPN Support – Athletes’ BPN Satisfaction
BPN Support – BPN Satisfaction	21(18)	7855	.494	.436; .548	<.000	211.034	<.000	91
Autonomy Support – Autonomy Satisfaction	57(50)	18281	.449	.403; .493	<.000	807.243	<.000	93
Competence Support – Competence Satisfaction	12(9)	4179	.437	.323; .539	<.000	197.839	<.000	94
Relatedness Support – Relatedness Satisfaction	11(8)	4099	.486	.373; .584	<.000	189.458	<.000	95
Path b: Athletes’ BPN Satisfaction – Athletes’ Autonomous Motivation
BPN Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	58(54)	22517	.394	.353; .433	<.000	620.726	<.000	91
Autonomy Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	41(39)	19058	.362	.314; .408	<.000	463.474	<.000	91
Competence Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	42(40)	18228	.357	.297; .414	<.000	705.527	<.000	94
Relatedness Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	38(36)	17780	.360	.297; .420	<.000	694.734	<.000	95
Path c: Athletes’ Autonomous Motivation – Coaches’ BPN Satisfaction
Autonomous Motivation – BPN Satisfaction	2(1)	649	.347	.278; .414	<.000	.467	.490	0
Path d: Coaches’ BPN Satisfaction – Coaches’ Autonomous Motivation
BPN Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	14(12)	4503	.425	.334; .509	<.000	167.868	<.000	92
Autonomy Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	6(6)	1552	.393	.317; .463	<.000	14.132	.015	65
Competence Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	6(6)	1552	.342	.196; .473	<.000	47.698	<.000	90
Relatedness Satisfaction – Autonomous Motivation	6(6)	1552	.356	.284; .424	<.000	12.302	.031	59
Path e: Coach Autonomous Motivation – Coach BPN Support
Autonomous Motivation – BPN Support	8(6)	2412	.442	.386; .495	<.000	16.950	.002	59
Autonomous Motivation – Autonomy Support	9(8)	2289	.346	.257; .430	<.000	41.563	<.000	81
Autonomous Motivation – Competence Support	4(3)	1003	.374	.320; .427	<.000	4.183	.242	28
Autonomous Motivation – Relatedness Support	4(3)	1003	.466	.332; .581	<.000	15.650	.001	81

Note. BPN = basic psychological need; k = cumulative number of studies; ^a = numbers in parentheses indicate the number of published studies; N = cumulative sample size; r_c = sample-size weighted and reliability-corrected correlation¹⁷: r_c reflects the correlation coefficient after removing the effect of random measurement error (attenuation). Because measures with low reliability can artificially weaken observed correlations, this correction provides a more accurate estimate of the underlying association between the two variables; CI = confidence interval for r_c; p = test of r_c; Q = Cochran’s Q reflects the dispersion across study effect sizes; p_Q = test of between-study heterogeneity; I² = variance not attributable to sampling and measurement error, which is used to quantify the dispersion, and the value of I² shows the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance. I² was interpreted as follows: 0–30% = low; > 30–60% = moderate; > 60–100% = high heterogeneity^47,48; note that the sequence of a, b, c, d, e paths does not necessarily imply that coaches’ BPN support is a starting point of this circular framework.

Coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (path a)

As shown in Table 1, the meta-analysis indicated that the relationship between coaches’ general BPN support and athletes’ general BPN satisfaction is moderate, positive, and significant overall (r = .49). Specifically, coaches’ support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness were all moderately, positively, and significantly related to athletes’ autonomy (r = .45), competence (r = .44), and relatedness satisfaction (r = .49), respectively.

Athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation (path b)

Table 1 also shows that there is a moderate, positive, and significant relationship between athletes’ general BPN satisfaction and their autonomous motivation (r = .39). As expected, athletes’ autonomy (r = .36), competence (r = .36), and relatedness satisfaction (r = .36) were all moderately, positively, and significantly related to their autonomous motivation.

Athletes’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN satisfaction (path c)

To test this path, we identified only two studies, and no studies were found investigating the specific BPN types (see Table 1). Clearly, two studies are insufficient for conducting a meta-analysis.^46,49 The two specific correlations were .33 and .38, with an average correlation of r = .35.

Coaches’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation (path d)

As expected, coaches’ BPN satisfaction exhibited a meta-analytic positive relationship with their autonomous motivation in general, with the relationship being moderate and significant (r = .43). Specifically, coaches’ autonomy (r = .39), competence (r = .34), and relatedness satisfaction (r = .36) were all moderately and positively related to their autonomous motivation, and the relationships were significant (see Table 1).

Coaches’ autonomous motivation and coaches’ BPN support (path e)

Finally, Table 1 shows that coaches’ autonomous motivation had a moderate, positive, and significant relationship with their general BPN support in coaching (r = .44). More concretely, coaches’ autonomous motivation exhibited moderate, positive, and significant relationships with their autonomy (r = .35), competence (r = .37), and relatedness support (r = .47).

Publication bias and sensitivity analyses

Appendix D presents the detailed results of publication bias and sensitivity analyses. Our findings from Egger’s regression test of funnel plot asymmetry indicated that four relationships between athletes’ BPN satisfaction and their autonomous motivation contained possible publication bias. However, after removing the study from Nielsen et al.⁵⁰ with a particularly large sample size (N = 7110), Egger’s regression test did not indicate any evidence of publication bias afterwards. Removing a large study potentially reduced apparent asymmetry in the funnel plot and altered the slope of the regression line.⁴⁵

Discussion

The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis support the proposed circular framework. First, across studies, we found a positive relationship between coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction (i.e., path a; based on the organismic dialectical principle).²² This suggests that coaches’ support may contribute to an interpersonal context that fulfils athletes’ BPNs. Second, our findings indicate that athletes’ BPN satisfaction is an essential psychological nutrient for their autonomous motivation to drive self-initiated behaviours pursued for the interest and pleasure of sports, as well as for the achievement of goals aligned with their values (i.e., path b)¹ Third, only two studies in the extant literature have specifically identified athletes’ autonomous motivation as a contextual factor positively related to coaches’ BPN satisfaction (i.e., path c).^7,8 Fourth, coaches’ BPN satisfaction is positively linked to their own autonomous motivation (i.e., path d).⁵¹ Finally, our findings suggest that coaches tend to cultivate a supportive environment to nurture their athletes’ BPNs (i.e., path e).³²

These meta-analytic findings in the coach-athlete context are consistent with the extant SDT literature across various social domains. For example, Ng et al.⁵² conducted a meta-analysis of the empirical SDT literature in healthcare settings, where they also found positive relationships between practitioners’ BPN support, patients’ BPN satisfaction, and patients’ autonomous motivation (i.e., paths a and b). In the educational context, Ahn et al.⁵³ demonstrated a positive sequential relationship between teachers’ autonomous motivation, students’ perceptions of BPN-supportive practices, students’ BPN satisfaction, and their autonomous motivation (i.e., paths e, a, and b, respectively). Other studies in educational contexts similarly showed that the link between teachers’ and students’ autonomous motivation was mediated by perceived teachers’ BPN support and students’ BPN satisfaction (i.e., paths e, a, and b, respectively).^54–57 Matosic et al.³² also suggested that when support providers perceive high autonomous motivation in recipients, they may feel greater freedom to offer BPN support. They further emphasised that recipients’ autonomous motivation is critical for providers’ BPN satisfaction, which in turn enhances providers’ own autonomous motivation and leads to greater BPN support (i.e., paths c, d, and e).

Strong need for more dyadic studies on BPN-supportive coaching

Our systematic review and meta-analysis not only synthesised the existing body of knowledge but also revealed a significant limitation in previous studies, which have relied exclusively on individual-level data. This is particularly noteworthy given that collaboration and interdependence are essential features of the coaching alliance.^58–60 At its core, the coach-athlete relationship thrives on mutual support, satisfaction, and motivation, all fostered through continuous interaction, making it arguably the most crucial dyadic relationship in sports.^61,62 Hence, the logical next step for future research in this domain is to address this gap by adopting an interpersonal perspective and verifying the paths in the circular framework using dyadic data.

The literature on SDT in dyadic relationships in other fields has demonstrated that BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation meet the criteria for “multilevel constructs”.⁶³ This suggests that they can be generalised across different levels of analysis, including individual, dyadic, team, and organisational contexts.⁶⁴ For example, some dyadic studies have highlighted that an individual’s BPNs and autonomous motivation are likely to be influenced by the behaviours and motivational states of significant others, such as teachers,⁶⁵ parents,⁶⁶ and partners.^64,67,68 When two individuals are nested within a dyad, they are likely to influence each other’s psychological experiences and behaviours.⁶⁴ More specifically, dyadic research on parent-adolescent interactions has shown that adolescents’ BPN satisfaction and observed reciprocity during conversations mediate the relationship between parents’ BPN support and adolescents’ autonomous motivation for disclosure. Similarly, that research has also found that parents’ BPN satisfaction and observed reciprocity mediate the link between parents’ BPN support and their own autonomous motivation.⁶⁹ Additionally, studies on close relationships have revealed that relationship functioning and an individual’s autonomous motivation are positively associated not only with their own BPN satisfaction but also with their partner’s BPN satisfaction.⁶⁸

The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) offers a promising framework for advancing our understanding of the dynamics within coach-athlete dyads.^70,71 This model distinguishes between two primary effects: the “actor effect”, which refers to the relationship between an individual’s predictor and their own outcome (e.g., athletes’ BPN satisfaction and their autonomous motivation), and the “partner effect”, which captures the relationship between one individual’s predictor and their partner’s outcome (e.g., athletes’ BPN satisfaction and coaches’ autonomous motivation). Additionally, the APIM highlights “predictors’ dyadic interdependence” (e.g., between coaches’ and athletes’ BPN satisfaction) and “outcomes’ dyadic interdependence” (e.g., between coaches’ and athletes’ autonomous motivation). This model provides a robust framework for analysing the reciprocal influences within these dyadic relationships.

More dyadic studies on the synergy of BPN satisfaction

Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that the number of individual-level studies investigating the relationship between perceived autonomy support from coaches and athletes’ satisfaction of autonomy (N = 57) significantly exceeds those examining satisfaction of competence (N = 12) or relatedness (N = 11). These findings suggest that, among the three specific BPNs, autonomy satisfaction has been considered primary.¹⁷ As Ryan et al.⁷² highlighted, “once people are volitionally engaged and have a high degree of willingness to act, they are then most apt to learn and apply new strategies and competencies” (p. 231). In other words, a sense of autonomy can be viewed as a foundational prerequisite for engaging in meaningful activities, fostering social connectedness, and utilising one’s abilities within a group context.²² Hence, one could argue that, in practical settings, supporting athletes’ autonomy should be a priority for coaches.^73–75

However, we found that the associations between coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ BPN satisfaction are similar across autonomy, competence, and relatedness (approximately r = .46, see Table 1). Likewise, the associations between athletes’ BPN satisfaction and their autonomous motivation are similar across the three specific needs (approximately r = .36). These results suggest that the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness is equally important. Therefore, our findings do not provide any evidence to support the notion that one BPN (e.g., autonomy) holds greater importance than the others (i.e., competence and relatedness).

One potential explanation for the observed similarity in associations is that the need-specific dimensions of interpersonal behaviours are interconnected.^4,76 This implies that the satisfaction of BPNs likely operates in a synergistic or mutually supportive manner.^7,77 Autonomy, competence, and relatedness are inherently relational and motivational constructs that are often cultivated through social interactions.⁷⁸ Therefore, future dyadic studies could more effectively capture these interactions and reveal the nuanced relational dynamics that contribute to both coaches’ and athletes’ autonomous motivation and other positive outcomes. For example, given the synergistic nature of BPNs, researchers might hypothesise that satisfying one BPN through coaches’ behaviour (e.g., autonomy support) not only directly enhances the corresponding BPN satisfaction in the athlete (e.g., autonomy satisfaction) but also indirectly improves the satisfaction of other BPNs (e.g., competence and relatedness). More specifically, the APIM offers a useful framework for investigating these interrelationships within coach-athlete dyads. For instance, the “actor effect” could examine how coaches’ self-reported autonomy support relates to coaches’ perception of athletes’ competence and relatedness satisfaction. Simultaneously, the “partner effect” could examine how coaches’ self-reported autonomy support relates to athletes’ self-perception of competence and relatedness satisfaction.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

Through our comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on coach-athlete relationships from an SDT perspective, we have identified key trends and gaps in this area of research and outlined a clear agenda for future studies. Our proposed circular framework integrates various SDT constructs, with a focus on the interpersonal dynamics within coach-athlete dyads. The moderate to strong positive correlations observed in individual-level studies, alongside consistent findings across various domains, provide a robust empirical foundation for future dyadic research on the synergy of BPN satisfaction in the coach-athlete relationship.

Despite these strengths, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, all the articles included in this meta-analysis rely exclusively on individual-level data. Given that BPN-supportive coaching is inherently relational, focusing solely on individual-level data overlooks the interdependent dynamics within dyadic relationships. This limitation may result in incomplete or skewed interpretations of how BPNs are satisfied and how autonomous motivation is fostered.

Second, our meta-analysis revealed a significantly smaller number of studies examining BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation within the coach population (N = 20) compared to those focusing on athletes (N = 84). Consequently, the aggregated sample sizes of coaches (N = 6341) and athletes (N = 37,334) differ substantially. A meta-analysis can reduce sampling errors by synthesising effect size estimates across multiple primary studies. However, when the total number of studies in a meta-analysis is small (e.g., for paths c, d, and e), it may contain second-order sampling error, necessitating caution when interpreting the results.³⁶ In line with this, Stebbings et al.^9,36 highlighted that no prior research had explored BPN satisfaction among coaches before their study. Similarly, McLean and Mallet⁷⁹ pointed out the imbalance in research focus, noting that most studies have centred on athletes, overlooking the psychological experiences of coaches and how these experiences influence their coaching behaviour. Dyadic studies that account for both coaches’ and athletes’ needs and experiences should thus be prioritised to address this gap.^80,81

Third, most of the studies in the meta-analysis are cross-sectional (82%), with only a small proportion employing a longitudinal design (18%). Cross-sectional studies are vulnerable to common-method variance or transient-occasion measurement factors, which can artificially skew correlations in the literature.^82,83 In contrast, longitudinal studies allow researchers to uncover patterns of reciprocal influence, capture the dynamic nature of coach-athlete relationships, and pinpoint critical periods when BPN support is most impactful for athletes.⁸⁴ For instance, a longitudinal, dyadic-level study could track how coaches’ provision of BPN support affects the athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation over time, and vice versa. This approach enables researchers to explore how these variables develop and mutually influence each other.⁸⁵ Additionally, coaches’ behaviours and coach-athlete relationships tend to fluctuate throughout a sports season.⁸ A cross-lagged panel design could be used to assess coaches’ BPN support and athletes’ autonomous motivation at multiple time points, such as the beginning, middle, and end of a season. This design is particularly suited to examining the directionality of reciprocal relationships between coaches’ and the athletes’ BPN support and autonomous motivations.^74,85 More specifically, it can help determine whether coaches’ BPN support at an earlier stage predicts athletes’ autonomous motivation at a later stage, and whether athletes’ autonomous motivation, in turn, influences the subsequent BPN support provided by coaches.

Fourth, our meta-analysis did not assess potential moderators, primarily because of the limited number of studies reporting on the same moderator. Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of effects observed (see Table 1) in the literature suggests the existence of possible moderating factors contributing to variability in effects across studies. The heterogeneity observed both in prior meta-analysis¹⁷ and the present study suggests that investigating moderators in future research would be valuable. Examining moderators is essential for understanding the conditions under which associations between coaches’ and athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation strengthen or weaken. For example, examining how the level of coaching experience moderates these dyadic relationships may offer deeper insights into the dynamic interplay between coach and athlete. Additionally, in future studies utilising the APIM to explore the bidirectional nature of coach-athlete dyads, moderation analyses, such as investigating whether the actor or partner effect is moderated by coaching experience, are both feasible and recommended.^71,86 Beyond experience, future researchers can also pay attention to other potential moderators theoretically important to the boundary conditions of these dyadic relationships. For example, sport type (individual vs. team) and competitive level (youth, collegiate, elite) may alter autonomy affordances and feedback structures⁸⁷; relationship tenure and coach-athlete ratio may impact opportunities for tailored BPN support⁸⁸; gender composition (e.g., gender match/mismatch) and age gap may shape communication and perceived BPN support.⁸⁹ Testing these moderators can help explain heterogeneity and specify when, for whom, and under what contextual conditions the coach-athlete motivational links are strongest.

Notably, with a few exceptions, the “dark side” of the SDT framework, that is, the controlling interpersonal style of coaches, along with the associated behaviours that frustrate or thwart their athletes’ BPNs, has been largely overlooked in the existing literature in sports.^15,18 BPN frustration occurs when athletes feel coerced into specific actions (autonomy frustration), subjected to harsh criticism (competence frustration), or rejected by their coaches (relatedness frustration).⁹⁰ Importantly, low BPN satisfaction is not synonymous with high BPN frustration, as they are linked to distinct outcomes.⁹¹ Specifically, low BPN satisfaction is associated with reduced autonomous motivation. In contrast, high BPN frustration is tied to increased controlled motivation, where individuals engage in activities to gain rewards, satisfy others, or avoid punishment. Athletes’ controlled motivation is associated with coaches’ BPN frustration, which in turn is related to coaches’ controlled motivation and BPN-thwarting behaviours in coaching, respectively.⁸¹ Therefore, future dyadic research on coaches’ controlling interpersonal style can adopt a similar circular framework to examine the relationships among coaches’ BPN-thwarting, athletes’ BPN frustration, athletes’ controlled motivation, coaches’ BPN frustration, and coaches’ controlled motivation.

Practical implications

As all the studies included in our systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted at the individual rather than the dyadic level, we must exercise caution when applying our findings to develop guidelines for improving coaching practices. Nevertheless, the current findings, which support our circular conceptual framework, along with previous research at both individual and dyadic levels in other domains, enable us to make the following recommendations for practitioners. First, the coach-athlete relationship should be viewed as a dynamic, bidirectional interaction.⁷¹ Therefore, coaching practices should account not only for athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation but also for those of the coaches. Formal coach education programmes should aim to enhance coaches’ satisfaction with autonomy, competence, and relatedness to further stimulate their autonomous motivation.⁹ For example, autonomy can be promoted by involving coaches in decision-making processes, allowing flexibility in modifying coaching plans, and enabling them to choose their coaching methods. Competence can be enhanced by providing opportunities for professional development that equip coaches with strategies to implement BPN-supportive approaches in their practices. Lastly, relatedness can be promoted by creating a supportive working environment, encouraging respectful communication with administrators, and fostering collaboration with highly motivated athletes.^81,92

Second, we suggest that coaching techniques could consider the circular pattern and interconnected nature of coaching dynamics by employing the performance profiling technique. Performance profiling involves the objective collection of performance indicators, encompassing both outcomes and processes. It is based on pre-agreed key performance indicators that significantly influence performance from physical, technical, tactical, and mental perspectives.⁹³ In the context of sports coaching, both coaches and athletes can collaboratively assess and agree upon the importance of current and desired levels of BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation. Once these levels are established, coaches and athletes can track performance by profiling both their own and each other’s BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation. This profiling process combines objective video and notational analysis with subjective personal experiences, facilitating the comparison of differences. Objective data from both sources is necessary because athletes’ self-handicapping is frequently observed,⁹³ and coaches’ perceptions of their own BPN-supportive behaviour do not always align with athletes’ perceptions; thus, overcoming these discrepancies is essential for fulfilling athletes’ BPNs in sport⁸ or coachees in other settings.⁹⁴ Furthermore, profiling information should be fed back into the ensuing coaching process, and coaches should integrate BPN-supportive interpersonal behaviours while presenting the data and feedback. Following these steps can sustainably enhance both the coaches’ and the athletes’ BPN satisfaction and autonomous motivation.

Conclusion

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified empirical support for our proposed model, which outlines five key pathways linking the relationships between coaches’ BPN support, athletes’ BPN satisfaction, athletes’ autonomous motivation, coaches’ BPN satisfaction, and coaches’ autonomous motivation. Collectively, these links suggest a virtuous motivational loop that highlights the support and satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, which function as key levers sustaining high-quality motivation for both coaches and athletes, with clear practical implications for coach education, athlete development, and the maintenance of their interpersonal and dynamic relationships. Since all the studies included in this analysis are based solely on individual-level data (either from athletes or coaches), our findings provide only suggestive evidence for the interconnected nature of coaching dynamics. Therefore, we advocate for future research that examines the coach-athlete relationship at the dyadic level to further validate and extend the current findings. Advancing along this agenda will move the field from suggestive associations to validated, dyad-level mechanisms that can more precisely inform coach education and athlete interventions.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 - Supplemental material for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Hugh Jiliang Liu, Kiki MM De Jonge, Ruud JR Den Hartigh and Nico W Van Yperen in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 - Supplemental material for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-2-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Hugh Jiliang Liu, Kiki MM De Jonge, Ruud JR Den Hartigh and Nico W Van Yperen in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Supplemental Material

sj-xlsx-3-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 - Supplemental material for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Supplemental material, sj-xlsx-3-spo-10.1177_17479541251400621 for Basic psychological need support, need satisfaction, and autonomous motivation in coach-athlete relationships: A systematic review and meta-analysis by Hugh Jiliang Liu, Kiki MM De Jonge, Ruud JR Den Hartigh and Nico W Van Yperen in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hugh Jiliang Liu

Kiki MM De Jonge

Ruud JR Den Hartigh

Nico W Van Yperen

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Hanzehogeschool Groningen, Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC),

Declaration of conflicting interests

Kiki M. M. De Jonge is the director of the company Groeiflow, Academy for Coaching & Training, Groningen, Netherlands. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding author.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ryan

Deci

. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Handbook of self-determination research. New York: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp.3–33.

Palmer

Whybrow

. Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2019.

Slemp

Field

Ryan

, et al. Interpersonal supports for basic psychological needs and their relations with motivation, well-being, and performance: A meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2024; 127: 1012–1037.

Ryan

Deci

. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017.

Mageau

Vallerand

. The coach-athlete relationship: a motivational model. J Sport Sci 2003; 21: 883–904.

Jowett

. Coaching effectiveness: the coach-athlete relationship at its heart. Curr Opin Psychol 2017; 16: 154–158.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Desmarais

. The validity of the interpersonal behaviors questionnaire (IBQ) in sport. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2017; 21: 15–25.

Rocchi

Pelletier

. How does coaches’ reported interpersonal behavior align with athletes’ perceptions? Consequences for female athletes’ psychological needs in sport. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2018; 7: 141–154.

Stebbings

Taylor

Spray

. Antecedents of perceived coach autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors: coach psychological need satisfaction and well-being. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011; 33: 255–272.

10.

Guay

Mageau

Vallerand

. On the hierarchical structure of self-determined motivation: a test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal effects. Person Soc Psychol Bull 2003; 29: 992–1004.

11.

Jowett

Shanmugam

. Relational coaching in sport: its psychological underpinnings and practical effectiveness. In: Routledge international handbook of sport psychology. Routledge, 2016, pp.471–484.

12.

Jowett

. Interdependence analysis and the 3+1Cs in the coach-athlete relationship. In: Jowette

Lavallee

(eds) Social psychology in sport. Human Kinetics, 2007, pp.15–27.

13.

Jowett

Kanakoglou

Passmore

. The application of the 3+1Cs relationship model in executive coaching. Consult Psychol J 2012; 64: 183–197.

14.

Deci

Ryan

. Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: relationships motivation theory. In: Weinstein

(eds) Human motivation and interpersonal relationships. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp.53–73.

15.

Bartholomew

Ntoumanis

Ryan

, et al. Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: assessing the darker side of athletic experience. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011; 33: 75–102.

16.

Morales-Sánchez

Crespillo-Jurado

Jiménez-López

, et al. Relationships between controlling interpersonal coaching style, basic psychological need thwarting, and burnout, in adolescent soccer players. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 19: 896.

17.

Mossman

Slemp

Lewis

, et al. Autonomy support in sport and exercise settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2022; 17: 540–563.

18.

Ntoumanis

Bengtsson

Hancox

, et al. Candidate antecedents of need supportive and need thwarting interpersonal styles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Motiv Sci 2025.

19.

Spence

Oades

. Coaching with self-determination theory in mind: using theory to advance evidence-based coaching practice. Int J Evid Based Coach Mentor 2011; 9: 37–55.

20.

Spence

Deci

. Self-determination theory within coaching contexts: supporting motives and goals that promote optimal functioning and well-being. In: David

(eds) Beyond goals: effective strategies for coaching and mentoring. Routledge, 2016, pp.85–108.

21.

Passmore

. Mastery in coaching: A complete psychological toolkit for advanced coaching. Kogan Page Publishers, 2014.

22.

Deci

Ryan

. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 2000; 11: 227–268.

23.

Conroy

Coatsworth

. Assessing autonomy-supportive coaching strategies in youth sport. Psychol Sport Exerc 2007; 8: 671–684.

24.

Van den Berghe

Soenens

Aelterman

, et al. Within-person profiles of teachers’ motivation to teach: associations with need satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout. Psychol Sport Exerc 2014; 15: 407–417.

25.

Fransen

Boen

Vansteenkiste

, et al. The power of competence support: the impact of coaches and athlete leaders on intrinsic motivation and performance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018; 28: 725–745.

26.

Ryan

Moller

. Competence as central, but not sufficient, for high-quality motivation. In: Elliot

Dweck

Yeager

(eds) Handbook of competence and motivation: theory and application. New York: The Guilford Press, 2017, pp.214–231.

27.

Grant

Cavanagh

. Coaching and positive psychology. In: Sheldon

Kashdan

Steger

(eds) Designing positive psychology: taking stock and moving forward. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.293–309.

28.

Van den Broeck

Ferris

Chang

, et al. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J. Manag 2016; 42: 1195–1229.

29.

Stenling

Lindwall

Hassmén

. Changes in perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in young elite athletes. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2015; 4: 50–61.

30.

Inguglia

Ingoglia

Leale

, et al. Psychological antecedents of Italian sport coaches’ coaching behaviors: the role of basic psychological needs, motivation and subjective vitality. Healthcare 2013; 11: 2797.

31.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Couture

. Determinants of coach motivation and autonomy supportive coaching behaviours. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14: 852–859.

32.

Matosic

Ntoumanis

Quested

. Antecedents of need supportive and controlling interpersonal styles from a self-determination theory perspective: a review and implications for sport psychology research. In: Raab

Wylleman

Seiler

Elbe

A-M

Hatzigeorgiadis

(eds) Sport and exercise psychology research. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic, 2016, pp.145–180.

33.

Alcaraz

Torregrosa

Viladrich

. How coaches’ motivations mediate between basic psychological needs and well-being/ill-being. Res Q Exerc Sport 2015; 86: 292–302.

34.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021; 18: 1–15.

35.

McShan

Moore

EWG

. Systematic review of the coach-athlete relationship from the coaches’ perspective. Kinesiology Review 2023; 12: 158–173.

36.

Schmidt

Hunter

. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. 3rd ed. Sage, 2015.

37.

Aromataris

Lockwood

Porritt

, et al. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI 2024.

38.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

, et al. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2021.

39.

Hunter

Schmidt

. Fixed effects vs. Random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int J Sel Assess 2000; 8: 275–292.

40.

Field

. The problems in using fixed-effects models of meta-analysis on real-world data. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences 2003; 2: 105–124.

41.

Kisamore

Brannick

. An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice. Organ Res Methods 2008; 11: 35–53.

42.

Corbière

Larivière

. Méthodes qualitatives, quantitatives et mixtes, 2e édition: Dans la recherche en sciences humaines, sociales et de la santé: PUQ, 2020.

43.

Higgins

Thomas

Chandler

, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

44.

Egger

Smith

Schneider

, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 1997; 315: 629–634.

45.

Sterne

Egger

. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1046–1055.

46.

Sterne

Sutton

Ioannidis

, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 2011; 343: 302–307.

47.

Alba

Alexander

Chang

, et al. High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 70: 129–135.

48.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557–560.

49.

Higgins

JPT

Green

. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2008.

50.

Nielsen

Wikman

Appleton

, et al. Predicting adolescents’ continuation in club sports: a prospective cohort study of the importance of personal and contextual motivational factors in five sports in Denmark. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2024; 34: e14616.

51.

Da Silva

Sánchez-Oliva

Mallett

, et al. Preliminary development of the Portuguese coach motivation questionnaire. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2018; 13: 649–657.

52.

Ntoumanis

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

, et al. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012; 7: 325–340.

53.

Ahn

Chiu

Patrick

. Connecting teacher and student motivation: student-perceived teacher need-supportive practices and student need satisfaction. Contemp Educ Psychol 2021; 64: 101950.

54.

Katz

Shahar

. What makes a motivating teacher? Teachers’ motivation and beliefs as predictors of their autonomy-supportive style. Sch Psychol Int 2015; 36: 575–588.

55.

Lam

Cheng

. Teacher and student intrinsic motivation in project-based learning. Instr Sci 2009; 37: 565–578.

56.

Roth

Assor

Kanat-Maymon

, et al. Autonomous motivation for teaching: how self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. J Educ Psychol 2007; 99: 761–774.

57.

Van Loon

Ros

Martens

. Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: what about autonomy and structure? Educ Technol Res Dev 2012; 60: 1015–1032.

58.

Dryden

. Cognitive-emotive-behavioural coaching: A flexible and pluralistic approach. Routledge, 2017.

59.

Kliewer

Ndirangu

. Advancing reciprocity in cross-cultural leadership coaching. Journal of Leadership Education 2019; 18: 178–187.

60.

Mynbayeva

Minash

Karabutova

. Coaching methods in teaching self-cognition and enhancing methodical competencies of teachers. In: icCSBs 2019-The Annual International Conference on Cognitive-Social, and Behavioural Sciences, pp.112-123.

61.

Côté

Gilbert

. An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J Sport Sci Coach 2009; 4: 307–323.

62.

Lyle

. Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2016.

63.

Chen

Mathieu

Bliese

. A framework for conducting multi-level construct validation. In: Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and processes. England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2005, pp.273–303.

64.

Gaudreau

Fecteau

Perreault

. Individual self-determination and relationship satisfaction of athletes in dyadic sports: examining the moderating role of dyadic self-determination. J Appl Sport Psychol 2010; 22: 34–50.

65.

Rutten

Boen

Seghers

. How school social and physical environments relate to autonomous motivation in physical education: the mediating role of need satisfaction. J Teach Phys Educ 2012; 31: 216–230.

66.

Katz

Kaplan

Buzukashvily

. The role of parents’ motivation in students’ autonomous motivation for doing homework. Learn Individ Differ 2011; 21: 376–386.

67.

Gravel

Reissing

Pelletier

. The ebb and flow of sexual well-being: the contributions of basic psychological needs and autonomous and controlled sexual motivation to daily variations in sexual well-being. J Soc Pers Relatsh 2020; 37: 2286–2306.

68.

Patrick

Knee

Canevello

, et al. The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: a self-determination theory perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007; 92: 434–457.

69.

Wuyts

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

, et al. The role of observed autonomy support, reciprocity, and need satisfaction in adolescent disclosure about friends. J Adolesc 2018; 65: 141–154.

70.

Cook

Kenny

. The actor-partner interdependence model: a model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. Int J Behav Dev 2005; 29: 101–109.

71.

Fonteyn

Haerens

Vansteenkiste

, et al. It takes two to tango: using the actor-partner interdependence model for studying the coach-athlete relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc 2022; 63: 102273.

72.

Ryan

Lynch

Vansteenkiste

, et al. Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: a look at theory and practice. Couns Psychol 2011; 39: 193–260.

73.

Coatsworth

Conroy

. The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Dev Psychol 2009; 45: 320–328.

74.

Gjesdal

Wold

Ommundsen

. Promoting additional activity in youth soccer: a half-longitudinal study on the influence of autonomy-supportive coaching and basic psychological need satisfaction. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 268–276.

75.

Pulido

Sanchez-Oliva

Amado

, et al. Influence of motivational processes on enjoyment, boredom and intention to persist in young sportspersons. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recreation 2014; 36: 135–149.

76.

Ryan

. The nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. In: Strauss

Goethals

(eds) The self: interdisciplinary approaches. Springer, 1991, pp.208–238.

77.

Bhavsar

Bartholomew

Quested

, et al. Measuring psychological need states in sport: Theoretical considerations and a new measure. Psychol Sport Exerc 2020; 47: 101617.

78.

Ryan

Deci

. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. Handbook of Self-Determination Research 2002; 2: 3–33.

79.

McLean

Mallett

. What motivates the motivators? An examination of sports coaches. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2012; 17: 21–35.

80.

Giges

Petitpas

Vernacchia

. Helping coaches meet their own needs: challenges for the sport psychology consultant. Sport Psychol 2004; 18: 430–444.

81.

Rocchi

Pelletier

. The antecedents of coaches’ interpersonal behaviors: the role of the coaching context, coaches’ psychological needs, and coaches’ motivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 39: 366–378.

82.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003; 88: 879–903.

83.

Spector

. Do not cross me: optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol 2019; 34: 125–137.

84.

Hendrickx

Kos

Cillessen

, et al. Reciprocal associations between teacher-student relations and students’ externalizing behavior in elementary education? A within-dyad analysis. J School Psychol 2022; 90: 1–18.

85.

Adie

Duda

Ntoumanis

. Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well-and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: a longitudinal investigation. Psychol Sport Exerc 2012; 13: 51–59.

86.

Garcia

Kenny

Ledermann

. Moderation in the actor-partner interdependence model. Pers Relatsh 2015; 22: 8–29.

87.

Lorimer

Jowett

. Empathic accuracy in coach-athlete dyads who participate in team and individual sports. Psychol Sport Exerc 2009; 10: 152–158.

88.

Jowett

Adie

Bartholomew

, et al. Motivational processes in the coach-athlete relationship: a multi-cultural self-determination approach. Psychol Sport Exerc 2017; 32: 143–152.

89.

Jowett

Nezlek

. Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important outcomes in coach-athlete dyads. J Soc Pers Relatsh 2012; 29: 287–301.

90.

Vansteenkiste

Ryan

. On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. J Psychother Integr 2013; 23: 263–280.

91.

Sheldon

. Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirement perspectives on psychological needs: a two process model. Psychol Rev 2011; 118: 552–569.

92.

Autin

Herdt

Garcia

, et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, autonomous motivation, and meaningful work: a self-determination theory perspective. J Career Assess 2022; 30: 78–93.

93.

Butterworth

O’Donoghue

Cropley

. Performance profiling in sports coaching: a review. Int J Perfo Anal Sport 2013; 13: 572–593.

94.

Liu

De Jonge

Den Hartigh

, et al. Perceptual distance in coaching beginning teachers: a dyadic study of Coaches’ basic psychological need support and Coachees’ need satisfaction. Front Educ 2025; 10: 1595274.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.06 MB

0.00 MB

0.63 MB

0.04 MB