An exploration of the coach experience in Special Olympics

Abstract

Special Olympics (SO) supports athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) through programming in sports, health, and community building. SO coaches have an essential role in facilitating a positive learning environment for their athletes; however, being an SO coach can be challenging as they adapt their coaching to meet the specific needs of the athletes. While there has been an increase in research about coach training and practices, there continues to be limited research on the specific context of coaching in disability sport. The current study examined SO coaches’ perspectives and experiences related to their role, their support of SO athletes in SO activities, and in their broader communities. We conducted interviews with seventeen SO coaches and identified three themes and seven subthemes about their experiences. Overall, coaches found their role rewarding; however, they also identified many challenges. The current paper offers recommendations for SO, and the broader sport community on supporting coaches in disability sport.

Keywords

Coaching philosophy community intellectual & developmental disabilities volunteering

Background

Special Olympics (SO) supports individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) through programming in sports, health, and community building.¹ Currently, there are more than six million SO athletes, and over one million coaches and volunteers active in SO in 172 countries around the world. In Canada, there are more than 41,000 SO athletes with IDDs across 12 provincial and territorial chapters.¹ Volunteer coaches and assistant coaches support athletes in local community leagues that emphasize lifelong participation in sport and recreation, as well as training opportunities for Provincial/Territorial, National and World Games.

The benefits of SO participation among people with IDDs are becoming increasingly recognized, with growing evidence showing that SO participation is associated with improved psychological and emotional well-being, and social outcomes.^2–4 While there is a sizable body of literature exploring the benefits of participation in SO for athletes, there has been limited exploration of the experiences of SO coaches.

Successful coaching in mainstream sports is characterized by a holistic approach, focusing not only on the development of sport-specific skills but also on the overall development of athletes.⁵ Coaches prioritize technical, tactical, physical, and mental training.⁶ Successful coaches also create positive motivational climates, and adjust their styles based on individual athletes’ needs and perceptions, thereby enhancing athlete performance and satisfaction.^7,8 Effective coaches also use a range of leadership styles. In particular, transformational leadership fosters intrinsic motivation and team cohesion,⁹ which helps build trust and strengthens the athlete-coach relationship.¹⁰

For coaches working within the framework of SO, coaching requires a more nuanced approach to supporting athletes compared to the traditional approaches in mainstream sports due to the unique needs of athletes with IDDs. The overarching goal in SO is to facilitate personal growth and social inclusion rather than solely focusing on competitive success.^11,12 SO coaches intentionally design their training to promote positive life skills and personal development outcomes, including fostering confidence and enhancing social interactions among athletes.^13,14 They may also support the development of these skills outside of SO activities, such as in fundraising initiatives and community building activities. Coaches must also employ various adaptive techniques to address varying levels of ability among athletes with disabilities, including using clear and supportive communication strategies that cater to individual athlete needs.^14,15 Specific strategies include encouragement and behavioral coaching, aimed at empowering athletes and promoting personal development, are emphasized within coach training.¹¹ Coaches have also reported prioritizing enjoyment, friendship development, and social connection, even at the highest levels of competition, while placing relatively less emphasis on training and performance development.¹⁶ In terms of supporting the physical development of SO athletes, Sherlock-Shangraw¹⁷ found that encouragement, positive correction, and technical and tactical cues are key ingredients in effective sport coaching with SO athletes. Additional strategies included goal setting, performance feedback, positive reinforcement, one-on-one attention, and video modeling.¹⁸ Many SO coaches need to tailor their approaches to athletes of various abilities as well as focus more on team integration. For example, programs like Unified Sports integrate athletes with and without disabilities of similar ages and athletic abilities to train and compete in sports together, promoting mutual benefits and understanding. Coaches in these settings focus on creating a collaborative and inclusive environment that enhances social development and camaraderie.^12,19

SO coaches also play a key role in sport-related and personal development, nurturing athletes’ self-confidence and self-esteem, developing friendships, general health outcomes, and social skills development.¹¹ Cote's coaching model emphasizes the dynamic interaction between coaches, athletes, and the context in which sport occurs.²⁰ It outlines how coaches integrate their knowledge, decision-making, and behaviors to support athlete development.²⁰ As such, coaches are responsible for developing healthy relationships with athletes, modeling healthy behavior, and promoting physical activity through regular engagement in sport.^20,21 SO coaches support holistic athlete development by recognizing the importance of fostering both sport-specific skills and social interactions among athletes, which is consistent with Cote's coaching model^5,22 and in particular on character development and social connection.¹¹ Further, coaches play a critical role in motivating athletes to participate in SO programs by nurturing their confidence through positive encouragement and employing supportive methods to help athletes develop their sport competencies.¹³ Cote's model also emphasizes connection and community building, which resonates with the community-oriented focus of SO, mirroring calls for building strong, trusting connections that support athletes’ social development.¹¹

Cote's model emphasizes a holistic approach to coaching, and the model itself can be focused on athlete performance outcomes such as athlete confidence, performance anxiety, and overall psychosocial well-being.^23,24 However, the model's components can also account for the interplay between various contexts where coaching occurs, particularly those differences between coaching in mainstream sports and coaching with SO. Paid coaches in mainstream sport may focus more on performance outcomes while volunteer SO coaches emphasize intrinsic motivations such as passion for the sport or community involvement.²⁵ SO offers both competitive sport opportunities as well as recreational level programming; coaches involved in elite or competitive sport may focus more on athlete performance, while recreational sport coaches might prioritize enjoyment and personal development. Coaches of team sports may focus on connection and trust among athletes, while individual sport coaches may emphasize personal competence and confidence building.

Despite the role coaches play in shaping athlete outcomes and in creating a positive and supportive environment for their athletes, little is known about the experiences of coaches within SO. A recent narrative inquiry of SO national team coach perceptions and during training and competition as well as their perceptions of SO coach education developed three vignettes summarizing the experiences of elite SO coaches.¹⁸ This study provided a unique perspective on SO coach experiences; however, participants were solely coaches who have traveled internationally with SO athletes and coached athletes competing at the highest levels and who don’t represent a wide range of support needs of athletes. As such, this study examined how SO coaches who coach primarily at local and provincial levels in recreational programming experience their roles and how they view their support of SO athletes both in SO activities and in their broader communities. The following research questions guided this study: (1) What are the experiences of SO coaches who coach recreational programming?; and (2) What are SO coach perspectives of how they support SO athletes in sport?

Methods

This study was conducted within a qualitative, interpretivist paradigm,²⁶ which assumes that reality is socially constructed and best understood through participants’ perspectives. Guided by this approach, we aimed to explore the meanings and experiences embedded in the context of SO coaching. Data collection focused on capturing rich, descriptive accounts through semi-structured interviews, allowing participants to share their lived experiences in their own words. Analysis was iterative and interpretive, emphasizing patterns and themes rather than quantification, and reflexivity was maintained throughout to acknowledge the influence of researcher positionality on interpretation.

The current manuscript outlines findings from a larger qualitative study that sought to understand the factors that contributed to the mental health benefits of SO for athletes. Using a qualitative research design, this study aimed to explore how SO coaches perceive their roles and how they support SO athletes, both within SO programs and in the larger community. Within the broader study, one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with SO coaches, athletes, and caregivers. All interviews were conducted on Zoom, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim to allow in-depth qualitative analysis. For this study, findings from the interviews with coaches were analyzed and described.

We utilized a community-engaged approach in which the research team worked alongside an advisory to develop and implement all aspects of the study. Specifically, the advisory (including two SO athletes and an SO caregiver—who was also a SO coach) was established through existing relationships with SO Alberta. Both athletes play recreationally in their local SO group, as well as competitively as part of SO Team Alberta in their respective sports. The advisory co-created the interview guide for SO coaches, reviewed the initial codes identified, and assisted with finalizing the themes. The advisory also participated in conference presentations to share the findings of the study, speaking as part of a symposium and reviewing poster presentations. Engaging with the advisory ensured the study topic was relevant, the data collection tools were accessible, and the findings were accurately interpreted and effectively translated to create a meaningful impact.

The research data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA²⁷) situated within a qualitative, interpretivist paradigm. Given the exploratory nature of the research—examining the lived experiences of coaches in a context not previously studied—RTA was selected for its flexibility and its emphasis on researcher subjectivity and reflexivity. Semi-structured interviews facilitated rich, participant-led narratives, and thematic development was guided by a commitment to internal coherence, with each theme representing a meaningful pattern of shared experience rather than a summary of topics. Reflexive engagement was maintained throughout, with the researchers critically examining their positionality and the influence of their assumptions on the analytic process. This approach ensured theoretical and methodological alignment, and that the resulting themes reflected both the complexity of participants’ experiences and the collaborative ethos of the research.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited through SO Canada, SO Alberta, and through social media advertisements and word-of-mouth. Interested participants reached out to the research team to ensure they were eligible. Once deemed eligible, participants were asked to review and sign the consent form, and were then sent a background questionnaire to complete roughly one week before the interview. Interviews were scheduled at a time most convenient for the participants. All interviews were conducted via Zoom, as this allowed the research team to reach participants across Canada. All participants received a gift card for participating in the study. The study procedures were approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (REB21-1240). Pseudonyms are used when presenting results.

Measures

Background questionnaire

SO coaches were asked to complete an online demographic questionnaire that included questions about their age, gender, and residence, as well as their involvement in SO, such as which SO sports they coached and how long they have been an SO coach. The questionnaire took roughly 10 min to complete.

Semi-structured interview

All coaches were then asked to complete a virtual semi-structured interview with the first author, which took approximately 30–45 min. The interview consisted of 17 open-ended questions that inquired about internal factors associated with SO (e.g., “What do you like/dislike about Special Olympics?”, “How do you think coaches can impact the experiences of athletes?”), as well as external factors associated with SO (e.g., “Are there Special Olympics events that happen in the community (e.g., fundraisers) that you are involved in? If so, tell me about them”, “As a coach, tell me about your experiences with traveling with Special Olympics”). Questions also asked more specifically about how SO has influenced their coaching (e.g., “What is your coaching philosophy?”, “What do you like about being a coach with SO?”).

Data analysis

All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Three different researchers (SA, JLC, BKR) followed the six-phase approach to RTA outlines by Braun and Clarke.²⁷ All three researchers independently immersed themselves in the data and generated initial codes identifying significant features of the data. Initial themes were generated by SA and JLC independently based on codes, with the review of themes completed with all three researchers to resolve any differences between the initial themes. Discussions included hearing all perspectives on themes generated, regular review of codes generated by all three researchers, as well as reflecting on all coach interview transcripts and whether themes were reflected in multiple coach interviews. Final themes were defined and named by SA and BKR and then reviewed with the advisory group of SO athletes and SO coach before obtaining final approval from the larger research team. In the spirit of reflexivity and transparency regarding the research team's positionality, two study authors identify as individuals with IDDs, while the remaining eight authors do not. We recognize our positions as able-bodied, academically trained researchers. While we have experience supporting children and adults with disabilities, our expertise does not specifically include coaching or working with athletes with disabilities.

Results

Participants

Seventeen SO coaches participated in this study, who had an average age of 39.59 years (SD = 14.70, range 24–67 years). Twelve coaches (71%) identified as women, and the remaining identified as men (n = 5; 29%). Most coaches (n = 14; 82%) lived in Alberta with the others living in the Northwest Territories. On average, participants had been an SO coach for 9.03 years (SD = 6.05, range 5 months to 22 years). Coaches identified they often coached multiple SO activities, with eight (47%) coaching two or more activities. The sports coached included floor hockey, softball, athletics, speed skating, golf, snowshoeing, swimming, bowling, track and field, bocce, cornhole, soccer, and walking club. Coaches also indicated they had been involved in coaching FUNdamentals, a program for children aged 7–12 years with IDDs focusing on physical literacy, basic sport skills, nutrition, and social inclusion. To participate in this study, coaches had to be: 1) 16 years or older; 2) actively coaching in at least one SO activity over the last 12 months; and 3) be able to read and speak in English.

Qualitative analysis

Overall, the coaches interviewed highlighted many positive and negative experiences in their involvement with SO through both coaching as well as other SO activities including traveling, fundraising, and engaging with the broader community. Three main themes were identified from the analysis of the transcripts related to the coach experience in SO and are shown in Figure 1. These themes were: 1) Benefits for coaches; 2) How coaches approach SO coaching; and 3) Challenges for coaches. Collectively, participants shared several reflections that capture an understanding of the coach experience including such topics as the sense of community in SO, previous coaching experiences and techniques, as well as what challenges coaches experience in SO.

Benefits for Coaches

Figure 1.

Themes and subthemes identified from coach interviews.

Finding meaningful work often motivated coaches to become involved in SO. In doing so, many coaches found a sense of community and experienced purpose and pride in their role– all of which had a positive impact on their mental health.

Strong Sense of Community:

Coach involvement in SO not only helped build a bigger community for the athletes they served, but coaches simultaneously experienced a broadening of their own social circles. Forming meaningful relationships was a highlight of volunteering. Elyse spoke about how she and some of the athletes she has coached will “go to lunch or whatever, catch a movie.” Jacqueline, who has coached for many years, described similar relationships with athletes:

“So it's become a whole family thing and we consider like our, even our athletes, they’re very close especially on some of the teams I coach, that I’ve coached the same athletes for a number of years and I consider them my friends.” (Jacqueline)

Josh felt similarly about building a community with the athletes he coached, where coaches and athletes care deeply about each other and look out for each other, beyond what would be expected in a coach-athlete relationship. These connections create a strong sense of support between coaches and athletes:

“Again, you know, I come back to this word, and this is a really important word: community. I can’t emphasize that enough […] People who care about you, people you can care about, people you can look after.” (Josh)

Several coaches shared Michelle's sentiment about how the SO community benefits her own well-being through the connections with SO athletes: “You could be having the worst day, you can show up at practice and you’ll be just feeling better.” Another example from Michael, a coach and a caregiver of an SO athlete, described how coaching encourages meaningful connections within the SO community and a refreshed sense of purpose for himself even during weeks that are difficult: “[SO practices are]the three hours of my week that refill my cup. […] you know that you’re as much their bright light as they are yours.”

It is evident that being part of the SO community is beneficial for coaches and may contribute to the overall inclusive culture of SO, more so than the relationships between coaches and athletes in mainstream or recreational sport. (b)

Athlete Investment and Reward:

When describing their relationships with SO athletes, many coaches shared deep pride in supporting the athletes’ growth and achievements. They felt that their strong partnerships with the athletes contributed to the athletes’ success, making their role as a coach meaningful and rewarding.

Olivia described these partnerships as one of her favorite parts of being a coach:

“When you see somebody who is nervous to get in the water in the first place, and then they’re staying in the water and they’re happy to do a whole practice, um, to me that's very rewarding.” (Olivia)

Others, like Mackenna, described coaching as “so rewarding”, and provided her with the opportunity to attain personal goals alongside her athletes: “I have an athlete that I ran with, and we ran a marathon together.” Creating such change also evoked feelings of purpose unique to being engaged in SO, like those described by Henry, “I’ve never been involved in something that brings so much purpose to my life.” Henry went on to describe the importance of his role in Special Olympics and how that provides benefit to his own well-being and self-esteem: “I’m a guy that changes lives […] so you go home and carry that in your heart.” Two coaches shared that their involvement contributed to something that was larger than themselves:

“So I started coaching in Special Olympics and just fell in love with the movement and thought, ‘I really could do some good here’.” (Callie)

“Just giving that opportunity to these, these athletes to participate in something like that, it's life changing when you actually become a part of it.” (Michael)

Getting involved with SO gave coaches a meaningful way to give back to the community that provided them with a sense of pride and purpose. Several coaches discussed the sense of purpose and benefits to their own well-being that they had not experienced in mainstream or recreational sport. While coaches experience many benefits from their involvement with SO, they also pay these benefits forward to the SO athletes they coach.

How Coaches Approach SO Coaching

Coaching in SO involves supporting athletes with both their athletic performance and overall well-being. Coaches often come from a variety of backgrounds, have diverse coaching philosophies, and assume various responsibilities as SO coaches. Each of the subthemes outlines the impact of the coach's experience and their engagement with the organization, as well as their direct impact on the athletes and the programming itself.

Coaching Background:

While there are countless pathways for coaches to become involved in SO, two primary routes emerged in this sample: some coaches had professional experience and/or formal training in a particular sport or activity, while others got involved through a personal connection.

Some coaches had extensive training in the field of adapted physical activity, such as post-secondary degrees in either Kinesiology or Human Kinetics. Cheryl, who has an undergraduate degree in human kinetics, noted the importance of having such training. When asked what facilitates the development of physical skills in SO athletes, she noted:

“Having kind of specific tools and training to be able to develop like fundamental movement skills, being able to recognize different ways athletes learn and how to kind of incorporate that into your practice.” (Cheryl)

Other coaches had personal connections to the SO movement, with many describing family members or friends who had a disability. For example, Olivia spoke about a close family friend with Down syndrome, Sue's older sister was an SO athlete, and Michelle formed friendships with people who had disabilities through an adapted physical activity program at her high school. Similarly, Callie and Elyse had experience in the classroom as either an educational assistant or a teacher, as well as others who had previously coached or worked with a sports-related organization. Some, like Elyse, had both professional and personal experience working with people who have disabilities, with both her employment and personal family history supporting individuals with disabilities. This had a unique impact on her coaching, as Elyse noted:

“But it's always been a part of my life so I wasn’t afraid of maybe different personalities or any medical issues that might come up or anything like that.” (Elyse)

Having diversity in the backgrounds of coaches at SO means that athletes and other coaches can benefit from unique skillsets in the leadership team. (b)

Coaching Philosophies and Techniques:

All participants described their approach to coaching. Many coaches emphasized the importance of prioritizing individualized coaching techniques and needing to be creative with their approach to support athlete development. This was a commonality among coaches, whether they emphasized skill development or prioritized fun. Many coaches noted, like Sue, “there has to be that recognition of individual skill, individual personality […].” Similarly, Olivia talked about how she customizes her coaching to athletes according to their sport abilities. For example, when coaching beginner swimmers, she has worked with some athletes to perfect their front crawl technique and reduce their lap times, while she has coached other athletes to simply put their head under the water or stay at practice for the full time block:

“I really try to find ways to coach each of my athletes to their full potential. Just recognizing that that whole potential is so different, and success is so different for everybody.” (Olivia)

While taking this individualized approach, many coaches emphasized that their philosophy centered on building transferrable skills that would enable athletes to be successful both inside and outside of sport. Tessa, for example, described how SO has helped athletes develop social skills and to build quality relationships both inside and outside SO: “sport is like the vessel that we are [using] to create these friendships and relationships,”. Michelle also explained how SO increases athlete confidence and community interaction skills helping them to obtain volunteer and paid job positions: “the social side, like I said, is transferring those skills from the programs into their daily lives and we’ve seen that this, this does help athletes get jobs in the community”. Josh simply noted that the physical benefits of SO participation help athletes with their stamina and energy to help them get jobs: “if you’re fit, you’re employable.”

In maintaining adaptability and flexibility, many coaches created a positive environment for cultivating multiple skills in their athletes. For example, Hailey emphasized the need to adapt her approach to individual athletes by looking at what the session's goals and leveraging their high coach-to-athlete ratio to allow some coaches to focus on specific skills each athlete might need to work on in a one-on-one ratio rather than as part of a large group:

“You have to, like, constantly be adapting what you’re doing to make sure it works for that individual athlete. Because it's not, it's definitely not a one size fits all thing.” (Hailey)

With adaptability and a positive group culture, repetition and reinforcement also helped coaches create opportunities for success. For example, when asked what helps facilitate skill development, David replied, “Repetition of course […] keep repeating the good things.” Many discussed how they can model healthy behaviors in their role as a mentor and coach, including modeling healthy food and activity choices:

“My athletes know they can’t have pop when they’re at anything I do, it's water. It's teaching them why water is important.” (Mackenna)

“So, we’ll have a holiday break, but we’ll usually come in with some candies or a little treat before the holidays, right? [Laughs] I’ve always shown up with a big bag of apples and a bag of oranges, you know. [Laughs]” (Josh)

Meanwhile, others’ coaching philosophies revolved around the concept “work hard, play hard”. Lucas emphasized the importance of both fun and effort when he mentioned, “[…] If they’re not having fun then we’re failing, but having fun is not the only primary objective.” Elyse also noted:

“My motto in life is that ‘if it ain’t fun, don’t do it’. But I also work really hard […] But you know, I do believe that we need to work hard to have fun.” (Elyse)

Others noted the importance of pushing the competitive potential of these athletes, while still being mindful of individualized coaching strategies:

“Of course, I want to have fun, but I will push them to their potential, and I can be hard on them when I know they’re not, um, doing what they need to do.” (Mackenna)

The philosophies coaches bring to SO, guided by the individual experiences of the coach, as well as their education, training, and background, ultimately helped to create the group dynamics and culture that athletes are immersed in week by week.

(b)

Coaching is More Than Just Sports:

Alongside being adaptable, coaches had to establish group norms and culture to help support inclusivity in their programs, including setting boundaries for social interactions during SO programming and learning how to treat others with respect:

“[Something] that's really been a part of the culture of their Special Olympics experience is really cheering for others, really being encouraging.” (Sue)

“I think as a coach I feel I can set a little bit of a tone for um, how everybody treats each other […] Just setting this boundary and that tone that we’re all here to have fun together, this is a chance to meet some new people.” (Olivia)

Coaches also had a role in social facilitation; they were often responsible for creating opportunities for athletes to develop friendships and community within the group. Monica, a coach, described how she does this:

“You know, it's trying to, to bring like people based on their interests and based on who they are together vs. not always ability levels, does that make sense? It's kind of that fine balance in trying to pair up people where we think they would fit.” (Monica)

Likewise, another coach spoke about the role coaches play in developing social skills in the group through cooperation, respect, and encouragement of others:

“Coaches definitely help with that, especially with the cooperative piece of learning how to be cooperative with other kids.” (Anne)

The strategies coaches used, as well as their roles and responsibilities, were expansive and have a great impact. To enable their athletes to develop to their fullest potential, coaches often adapted their strategy based on the individual, created positive group dynamics, became mentors, and facilitated social communication within their program.

Challenges for Coaches

In their role as a SO coach, many participants discussed the various system and resource barriers, and the resulting limitations they experienced. While participants acknowledged SO's strong commitment to the well-being of both coaches and athletes, some also highlighted areas where improvements could better support their engagement. Similar to other sport organization, coaches mentioned several systemic challenges such as funding, availability of recreational space, and geographic limitations, which were beyond the control of coaches as well as SO.

Resource Challenges:

Many coaches highlighted how the program offered by SO are limited in the amount of funding available. Several coaches described the long drives to more affordable facilities, for example Sue shared: “I coached curling for one season, but it was almost an hour drive to get to the venue and that just wasn’t sustainable.” Others noted that programs run less frequently than ideal, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic:

“They only swim once a week. That's not really enough to keep them, their body fitness level up at all. […]” (Samantha, caregiver and coach)

This deficit in resources is even larger in rural areas, in particular for coaches in the Northwest Territories, where accessibility to adequate training facilities is sometimes not available at all. Cheryl, for example, noted:

“So we just have to wait for the snow to melt. Then, even then, our track is like gravel. If we had an athlete who really wanted to compete at a high level of athletics, I think it would be difficult.”

Due to limited paid positions within SO, volunteer coaches also typically are expected to make an extensive time commitment to their role to make up for the extra work that needs to be done to support athletes. For example, coach Tessa cautioned:

“But I think if I were to tell, get a friend involved, just be aware of the time, it's a big, big time commitment. […] I really had no idea what I was getting myself into.” (Tessa)

This was also noted by several SO coaches who indicated they volunteer coach for multiple SO activities, particularly in the rural areas of Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Some other coaches, like Josh, commented on how clear boundaries needed to be set so that the organization did not expect more than they were comfortable with, especially during travel to events/competitions where SO athletes need support but the costs of bringing a personal aide are a hindrance:

“I set up my boundaries you know.[…] I’m not there to be a one-on-one attendant to these athletes so I don’t do those kinds of things.” (Josh)

In addition to boundaries with the SO organization, other coaches, like Jacqueline, described the consequences of not setting personal boundaries with athletes, particularly around communication outside of scheduled practices and sessions:

“Maybe sometimes like the non-stop messages you get from some athletes. […] And you learn to know which athlete is going to send you a thousand emails and 15 thousand texts.” (Jacqueline)

Coaches highlighted several systemic challenges in resources to support them to be effective in coaching SO athletes, such as limited availability of training facilities, geographic distance challenges, and trying to manage boundaries around time commitment, their role as a coach, as well as personal boundaries with SO athletes.

(b)

Support Issues:

Despite every coach being passionate about SO and reporting feelings of satisfaction, purpose, and/or fulfillment, many also felt they needed more support from SO as an organization. Tessa, for example, described that her motivation to coach was impacted by the additional support she needed to do her job well including, both administrative support and help with equipment, facilities, and athlete support:

“Um, like I feel like the lack of support from like, on the front line if you’re a coach and you don’t have support from office staff, or you don’t have support from I don’t know, the facility. Whatever, there's so many things that could come at us. Um, it is, it's just kind of kills your morale a little bit and then it trickles down if that makes sense.” (Tessa)

Another coach, Henry, described it as feeling as though he is “sometimes left on an island to figure it out.” Feeling prepared in one's role would likely contribute to feeling supported, though many also described needing more training opportunities from SO for their coaches. Maverick, who also works in a paid coordinator position with SO, noted that:

“It is a really big change going from typical sports to adapted sports. We’re really lacking in that coach development. So a lot of our coaches, it's just, we really hope they just fall in love with the athletes and that's their stay, we just hope they figure out what to do along the way.” (Maverick)

When asked what a barrier for athletes could be in developing their skills, Elyse noted that she has limited skills in the sport she is coaching but the athletes needed a coach for that activity so she stepped in despite her limited technical knowledge:

“Um, we can be a barrier to them building their skills. So, for example, I’m not a good golfer so I actually can’t help you with that skill.” (Elyse)

Despite coaches having many roles and responsibilities they are expected to fulfill, they often felt that they needed more training from SO to address how to support athletes with disabilities. Many of the coaches had experience coaching athletes without disabilities, even at high levels of competition; however, they felt less prepared for the varying abilities and support needs of the athletes. This directly affects the quality of programing; coaches who do not feel trained, supported, or prepared will not be able to deliver the best experience for the athletes in their program.

Discussion

The current study offers a new and unique view on SO participation from the perspective of SO coaches. Most research to date has focused on the experiences of SO athletes and their caregivers, or primarily exploring coach training and practices such as basic techniques and strategies. Here, we gained an understanding of how SO coaches experience their role and how they view their support of SO athletes both in SO activities and in their broader communities.

The first theme from our semi-structured interviews was related to the benefits of SO participation for coaches. Our study showed that being a coach for SO is beneficial for their sense of belonging and community and overall mental well-being from feeling rewarded for their contribution. Coaches reported that the relationships they built with athletes helped them form a unique community where everyone feels rewarded when athletes are successful. While the focus in competitions is on athlete performance, coaches reported satisfaction and joy when their athletes reach their goals and often celebrate these accomplishments together. Previous literature on SO coaches has focused on coaches who are also caregivers of SO athletes and the connections these caregiver-coaches have established with each other.¹⁶ These connections have offered emotional support, as well as a sense of pride in their SO athlete child's accomplishments. Additionally, previous literature on the health benefits of volunteerism have documented lower levels of depression, increased longevity, improved life satisfaction, and higher quality of life among those who regularly volunteer in their communities.^28–30 Findings from our study suggest that SO coaches without family connections to SO may also experience these benefits. Several mechanisms of attaining these benefits have been proposed such as physiological adaptations related to volunteer tasks, improved sense of purpose, greater self-efficacy, and a positive self-perception of aging.^28,29 Coaches in our study described the importance of building meaningful relationships with their athletes to attain their own sense of community and to experience pride in performance accomplishments alongside their athletes. These two factors were often related to positive affect, satisfaction, and/or mental well-being by coaches. Future research should consider the role of community and shared pride as possible mechanisms in attaining the established health benefits of volunteerism within SO (for both family member-coaches as well as coaches without a closer connection) as well as in other volunteer industries.

Our second theme centered on what coaches can contribute to SO and its programming. There was a wide variety of experiences that coaches brought to their role as a volunteer coach, ranging from no previous sport experience to formal functional movement and sport training, and extensive coaching experience in competitive mainstream sports. This variety of experiences likely reflects the broader diversity of coaches within the organization, suggesting that each coach brings a unique skillset and background to their coaching practice. Coaches shared how their previous experiences related to sport and informed their coaching philosophies, strategies, and responsibilities they bring to their role as SO coaches. Coaches reported falling along the full continuum in terms of coaching philosophy from focusing on fun to performance; however, most coaches discussed focusing on or encouraging athletes to do their best and support each other in being successful in sport and in life. The strategies and responsibilities identified by coaches, including safety practices and coach practices for promoting athlete life skills and personal development, are similar to, those identified in Turgeon et al.'s¹¹ review. Safety skills identified by coaches in our study included proper functional movement, increasing physical endurance, and improving physical fitness to allow athletes to engage in employment and other community activities of interest. These suggest that SO coaches play an important role in helping athletes succeed in their sport, maintaining good physical literacy, and teaching important safety skills to SO athletes for both sport participation and everyday life. Similar to previous studies, coaches also identified that SO and their coaching helped athletes develop interpersonal and social skills, listening skills, organizational skills, and independent living skills.^31,32 Consistent with broader coaching research and Cote's model, the SO coaches in this study reported working to adjust their approaches to the needs of individual SO athletes and working to foster positive environments for both competitive and non-competitive SO activities.^7,8 By integrating their coaching skills, athletes’ abilities, and the context of the sport they are coaching (e.g., competitive vs. non-competitive), SO coaches demonstrated their ability to be flexible and dynamic when coaching.²⁰ Additionally, while the SO coaches emphasized taking a holistic approach to their coaching (consistent with coaching research), they expanded the definition of holistic to include social skills, community engagement, and non-sport personal development skills. However, most coaching research has focused primarily on tactical, technical, physical, and mental skill training.⁵ Unique to our study, the backgrounds of the SO coaches included several experiences in mainstream sport coaching. These experienced coaches may have received more formal training around coaching theories and practices, applying these skills to their SO coaching work. With this emphasis on coach background and training, SO may want to consider expanding their coach training program to ensure coaches are well prepared both in their technical skills as well as their ability to support the personal and social development of athletes.

The third theme identified systemic barriers coaches face within the SO organization. While previous research has highlighted coach reports about challenges with a lack of appropriate training programs,¹⁶ other barriers in SO activities have not been explored from the coach perspective. In this study, coaches identified two types of barriers: resource issues and support issues. Resource issues were often related to a lack of physical space availability (e.g., pool or arena space for rent), especially in the more rural areas such as the Northwest Territories, which has also been identified in previous research.³³ Coaches in rural areas also highlighted a general lack of suitable training locations, with gravel running tracks and poorly maintained ice rinks. Resource issues also include the accessibility of administrative support in understanding the full role of being an SO coach. This is consistent with previous research that identified administrative support being ideal but unavailable in SO coach orientation.¹³ Support issues identified in our study included a lack of formal training for coaches and support from the organization. Some coaches discussed the training available from SO head office. Still, they reported it was offered only sporadically and usually required in-person attendance which is a barrier for coaches in more rural locations. This aligns with previous literature, as Turgeon and colleagues¹¹ previously noted that while SO does not oversee nor regulate coach certification requirements, Canadian SO coaches are required to complete a minimum of one to three certification programs offered through the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP). A criticism of the NCCP programs by other SO coaches has been how generic this training material is and its lack of specific information about supporting athletes with disabilities.¹⁷ Many coaches in our study relied on their background experience through their formal education or previous coaching experience to inform their practice with SO athletes but often reported more training on supporting people with IDDs would have been very helpful. This was especially true when traveling with athletes to competitions and being completely responsible for their care and well-being. Previous research demonstrates that SO coaches do not typically cite workshops, classes, and courses as fundamental sources of coaching knowledge.^11,17 In fact, Pires and colleagues¹⁴ found that the more formal coaching knowledge SO coaches attained, the less confident they were in their coaching abilities. When examining sources of knowledge for SO coaches, MacDonald and colleagues¹³ similarly found that, while coaches highly value structured courses and training, “learning by doing” and having a mentor coach were the most relevant methods of coach development. Future research should consider the effects of different coach training methods on volunteer satisfaction, retention, feelings of preparedness, and athlete outcomes. This would enable researchers to make informed suggestions on how best to support SO coaches in their leadership role.

Limitations and future directions

While this is the first study to examine the experiences of SO coaches, findings should be interpreted while considering the following limitations. Despite efforts to recruit participants from across Canada through our partnership with SO Canada, volunteer coach participants were only from one province (Alberta) and one territory (Northwest Territories). Participants ranged from living in large urban centers and suburban areas to rural and remote areas of the country; however, we unfortunately did not have representation from British Columbia, central and eastern Canada, or the Atlantic provinces. Given the limited geographic catchment of our participants, future research should include the perspectives and experiences of SO coaches across Canada. Given SO is operationalized at the national, provincial, and often at the municipal level, it is possible that coaches in different provinces and regions have different experiences that should be considered when examining SO as a national program. For this study, we relied on coaches contacting us to participate, which may have biased our findings in having only coaches who are very engaged and active in SO participation or had the time/energy to engage in the research. This may have also created a bias for coaches that could have had a much more positive experience with SO who wanted to share about their perspectives. Future research should continue to explore the benefits and drawbacks of being a coach in SO and use purposive recruitment strategies, such as direct contact with coaches instead of a mass email (e.g., coach training events).

Implications

These findings support ongoing research into how to best combine athletic coaching with disability support. Adults and youth with IDDs experience significantly more physical, mental, and social health challenges compared to their peers without disabilities.^34–36 Physical activity interventions (including sports and recreation) have been shown to support health and well-being among neurodivergent youth,^37–39 emphasizing the importance of supporting youth and adults with disabilities to be more physically active. There continues to be a limited understanding of how coaching should be adapted for people with disabilities, and the current findings support the ongoing need for more investigation into how coaching approaches and strategies can be customized. These findings also support the need for additional training for coaches on how to adapt their coaching for people with disabilities, which could include incorporating a community-engaged approach where people with disabilities are part of the team of facilitators to ensure the voice of lived experience is included in training sessions.

Conclusions

Although the experiences of SO athletes participating in sport are well-understood, the experiences of volunteer SO coaches beyond their training and practices was unknown. Here, we found that coaches benefit from their roles in SO activities as well as SO athletes, and the relationships and community of SO allow coaches to share in the success and rewards of the athletes with whom they work. SO coaches bring a wealth of experience and background knowledge in sport, coaching, or disability supports to their roles and actively engage with athletes in their chosen sport activities. SO coaches also reported that there are barriers to their ability to coach effectively including resource limitations (e.g., lack of training space, limited volunteers) and support limitations (e.g., lack of training on disabilities, limited administrative support for organizational tasks). Overall, SO coaches reported positive experiences and that they planned to continue volunteering with SO for the long-term. Further exploration in other regions of Canada is recommended to ensure representation of the coach experience across the country. Results will be shared with SO officials to encourage ongoing development of coach training resources and supports.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all the Special Olympics coaches who contributed to this study.

ORCID iD

Stephanie Andreasen

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (REB21-1240).

Consent to participate

The Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at University of Calgary approved our interviews (approval: REB21-1240) on November 3, 2021. Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before starting interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: CM is on the Board of Directors for Special Olympics Alberta, and volunteers for Special Olympics Canada and International. AT volunteers with Special Olympics Calgary. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request.

References

Special Olympics Canada. About Special Olympics Canada [Internet]. https://www.specialolympics.ca/about (2023, accessed October 30, 2025).

Crawford

Burns

Fernie

. Psychosocial impact of involvement in the Special Olympics. Res Dev Disabil 2015; 45–46: 93–102.

Lloyd

Temple

VAA

Foley

JTT

, et al.

Young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who participate in Special Olympics are less likely to be diagnosed with depression.

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2022; 58: 1699–1708.

Tint

Thomson

Weiss

. A systematic literature review of the physical and psychosocial correlates of Special Olympics participation among individuals with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res 2017; 61: 301–324.

Côté

Gilbert

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

Lefebvre

Evans

Turnnidge

, et al. Describing and classifying coach development programmes: a synthesis of empirical research and applied practice. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 887–899.

Liu

Wang

. How coach leadership behavior influences athletes’ performance: the chain-mediated role of the coach-athlete relationship and psychological fatigue. Front Psychol 2025; 15: 1500867.

Smith

Smoll

Cumming

. Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2007; 29: 39–59.

Charbonneau

Barling

Kelloway

. Transformational leadership and sports performance: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation. J Applied Social Psychol 2001; 31: 1521–1534.

10.

Zhang

Lyu

, et al. Effect of boxers’ social support on mental fatigue: chain mediating effects of coach leadership behaviors and psychological resilience. WOR 2023; 76: 1465–1479.

11.

Turgeon

Morin

. Coaching Special Olympics: a scoping review. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2023; 18: 304–323.

12.

Arbour-Nicitopoulos

Bruno

Orr

, et al. Quality of participation experiences in Special Olympics sports programs. Adapt Phys Activ Q 2022; 39: 17–36.

13.

MacDonald

Beck

Erickson

, et al. Understanding sources of knowledge for coaches of athletes with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 2015; 29: 242–249.

14.

Pires

Batista

Marinho

, et al. Training and profile of Special Olympics Portugal coaches: influence of formal and non-formal learning. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 6491.

15.

Orban-Sebestyen

Szilárd

Farkas

, et al. Attitude of elite tennis coaches working with athletes with intellectual disabilities participating in Special Olympics. J Intellect Disabil Res 2022; 67: 123–135.

16.

Alexander-Urquhart

Bloom

Fraser

. Understanding the career experiences and reflections of special olympics Canada’s national team program coaches. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2025; 17: 32–46.

17.

Sherlock-Shangraw

. Identifying instructional practices employed by Massachusetts special olympics Hall of fame coaches [PhD thesis]. Boston: Boston University, 2013. 245 p.

18.

Popescu

Dina

Stroiescu

, et al. Gymnastics motor learning particularities in down syndrome children. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2013; 93: 2109–2113.

19.

Wilski

Urbański

Ossian

, et al. Coaching Unified Sports: Associations between perceived athlete improvement, barriers, and coach attitudes across five European countries. Front Psychol 2025; 16: 1632589.

20.

Cote

Salmela

Trudel

, et al. The coaching model: a grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1995; 17: 1–17.

21.

Jones

. The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching. London: Routledge, 2006. 208 p.

22.

Turgeon

Kendellen

Kramers

, et al. Making high school sport impactful. Kinesiol Rev (Champaign) 2019; 8: 188–194.

23.

Côté

. The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. Sport Psych 1999; 13: 395–417.

24.

Baker

Côté

Hawes

. The relationship between coaching behaviours and sport anxiety in athletes. J Sci Med Sport 2000; 3: 110–119.

25.

Gillham

Burton

Gillham

. Going beyond won-loss record to identify successful coaches: development and preliminary validation of the coaching success questionnaire-2. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2013; 8: 115–138.

26.

Willig

Eatough

Rogers

, et al. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2017, pp.193–211.

27.

Braun

Clarke

. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc 2019; 11: 589–597.

28.

Gottlieb

Gillespie

. Volunteerism, health, and civic engagement among older adults. Can J Aging 2008; 27: 399–406.

29.

Huo

Soederberg Miller

Kim

, et al. Volunteering, self-perceptions of aging, and mental health in later life. Gerontologist 2021; 61: 1131–1140.

30.

Yeung

JWK

Zhang

Kim

. Volunteering and health benefits in general adults: cumulative effects and forms. BMC Public Health 2018; 18: 8–8.

31.

Cybulski

Kraft

Formeris

, et al. Special Olympics coaches: examining the strategies they use to encourage their athletes to develop life skills. Int J Coach Sci 2016; 10: 3–23.

32.

Hassan

Dowling

McConkey

, et al. The inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in team sports: lessons from the Youth Unified Sports programme of Special Olympics. Sport Soc 2012; 15: 1275–1290.

33.

Harada

Parker

Siperstein

GN.

A comprehensive national study of Special Olympics programs in China: special report. Boston: University of Massachusetts, 2008.

34.

Cashin

Buckley

Trollor

, et al. A scoping review of what is known of the physical health of adults with autism spectrum disorder. J Intellect Disabil 2018; 22: 96–108.

35.

Granlund

Imms

King

, et al. Definitions and operationalization of mental health problems, wellbeing and participation constructs in children with NDC: distinctions and clarifications. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 1656.

36.

King

Proudfoot

Obeid

. Comorbidity among chronic physical health conditions and neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood. Curr Dev Disord Rep 2019; 6: 248–258.

37.

Lui

Liang

Sit

CHP

. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2024; 178: 247–257.

38.

Peng

Fang

Tajuddin

, et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of physical activity on neurodevelopment disorders, depression, and obesity among children and adolescents. Front Psychol 2022; 29: 940977.

39.

Sung

Leung

, et al. The effect of physical activity interventions on executive function among people with neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord 2022; 52: 1030–1050.