This capstone project examines the coach-athlete relationship through the lens of the interdependence theory, which includes the constructs of closeness, commitment, and complementarity. The author administered the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire to 50 athletes at Bethany College to determine which constructs are most important in the coach-athlete relationship at the Division III level. Results showed average scores for closeness, complementarity and commitment, suggesting room for improvement. The findings provide insight on how coach-athlete relationships can be strengthened at Bethany College and in Division III athletics overall.

1. The Interdependence
Theory and the Coach-
Athlete Relationship
by
Courtney Moyer
A Capstone Project Submitted to the Faculty of Bethany College
May 2017
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Teaching

2. Abstract
• The Coach-Athlete Relationship is studied through
the Interdependence Theory.
• The Interdependence Theory entails three
constructs (closeness, commitment,
complementarity).
• This study aims to discover which constructs are
important in the coach-athlete relationship at
Bethany College and Division III athletes.

3. Introduction
• The coach-athlete relationship is complex but
important.
• The coach-athlete relationship studies
interpersonal relationships through the 3C Model.
CLOSENESS COMMITMENT COMPLEMENTARITY

4. Purpose
• This study of the coach-athlete relationship is to
determine which constructs are present and
important in the coach-athlete relationship at
Bethany College, which in turn represents Division
IIII athletics as a whole.

5. Literature Review: The
Interdependence Theory
• The coach-athlete relationship is important to
the success and satisfaction of an athlete and of a
coach (Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015).
• The Interdependence Theory is a social
psychological process that occurs between
members of a relationship (Jowett, 2014).
• The Interdependence Theory uses three
constructs (Jowett, 2014).
1. Closeness 2. Commitment 3.
Complementarity

6. Literature Review: CART-Q
• The Coach-Athlete Relationship is studied through
the use of the Coach-Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q) (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2014 ).
SAMPLE:
Coach- Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (short meta CART-Q)
(1 Strongly (7 Strongly
Disagree) Agree)
My coach trusts me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My coach likes me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My coach respects me 1 2 3 4 5 6
7

7. Literature Review: CART-Q
Validity
• The questionnaire was created to be broad,
comprehensive, and applicable to the majority of
coaches and athletes, regardless of sport,
location, gender, sport level, or relational
complexity (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004).
• Confirmatory Factory Analysis validated CART-Q
and created universal use of 11 item
questionnaire.(Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004).

8. Literature Review: Results
• Overall research has concluded varied results.
British: closeness and complementarity
Greek: commitment and complementarity
Korean: complementarity
(Hunhyuk, Seongkwan & Jinyoung, 2013) (Yang & Jowett, 2013)

9. Research Question
• What constructs of the Interdependence Theory
are important and present to student-athletes in
the coach-athlete relationship at Bethany
College and Division III athletics?
The Bethany
College Softball
Team with Coach
Forsty celebrating
her 750th career
win.
(Personal Photo)

10. Method
• Participants: 50 Bethany College Division III
athletes (male and female)
• CART-Q (direct and meta)

11. Data Collection
• First 50 surveys were chosen (female and male
teams)
• 100 was goal
• Excel calculations

12. Data Analysis
• Mean
• Median
• Standard Deviation

13. Results
Closeness Mean Median
Standard
Deviation
Q1 My coach trusts me/ I trust my coach 5.38 6 1.53
Q2 My coach likes me/ I like my coach 5.44 6 1.44
Q3 My coach respects me/I respect my coach 5.67 6 1.36
Commitment
Q4 My coach respects the sacrifices I have experienced to improve my performance/ 5.38 6 1.66
I appreciate the sacrifices my coach has experienced to improve my performance 5.46 6 1.51
Q5 My coach is commited to me/ I am committed to my coach 4.61 5 1.48
Q6 My coach is close to me/ I am close to my coach 4.91 5 1.71
Q7 My coach thinks that my sporting career is promising with him/her as my coach/
I think my sporting career is promising with my coach
Complementarity
Q8 When I am coached by my coach, I feel at ease/ 4.64 5 1.69
When my coach coaches me, he/she is at ease
Q9 When my coach coaches me, he/she is ready to do his/her best 5.69 5 1.43
When I am coached by my coach, I am ready to do my best
Q10 When my coach coaches me, he/she is responsive to my efforts/ 5.43 6 1.37
When I am coached by my coach, I am responsive to his/her efforts
Q11 When my coach coaches me, he/she adopts a friendly stance/ 5.1 5.5 1.45
When I am coached by my coach, I adopt a friendly stance
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire

14. Results

15. Results

16. Results

17. Results

18. Discussion
• Data collected details the strength of the three
constructs in the coach-athlete relationship.
1: strongly disagree…………………………7: strongly
agree

19. Summary of Findings
• Closeness: 5.49 mean
• Complementarity: 5.2 mean
• Commitment: 5.09 mean
1: strongly disagree ---------------------------7: strongly
agree

20. Implications and Future
Research
• Limitations
• Sample size
• Self-reported data
• Lack of prior research (bias)
• Construct scores were average.
• Construct scores show athletic department,
teams, College, Division III athletics how the
coach-athlete relationship can improve.

21. References
The Coach-Athlete Partnership. (2005). The Psychologist, 18, 412-415. Retrieved April 21, 2017.
Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Solutions in sport psychology. London: Thomson.
Cowan, J., Slogrove, C. L., & Hoelson, C. N. (2012). Self-efficacy and social support of academy cricketers. South African
Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 34, 27–39.
Cranmer, G. A., & Sollitto, M. (2015). Sport Support: Received Social Support as a Predictor of Athlete Satisfaction.
Communication Research Reports, 32(3), 253-264. doi:10.1080/08824096.2015.1052900.
Hülya Aşçı, F., Kelecek, S., & AltintaŞ, A. (2015). The Role of Personality Characteristics of Athletes in Coach-Athlete
Relationships. Perceptual And Motor Skills, 121(2), 399-411. doi: 10.2466/30.PMS.121c17x9
Hunhyuk, C., Seongkwan, C., & Jinyoung, H. (2013). The Association Between the Perceived Coach-Athlete Relationship
and Athletes’ Basic Pyschological Needs. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 41(9), 1547-1556.
doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.9.1547
Jowett, S. (2014). Interdependence Theory and the Coach–Athlete Relationship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jowett, S. (2009). Validating Coach-Athlete Relationship Measures with the Nomological Network. Measurement In
Physical Education & Exercise Science, 13(1), 34-51. doi:10.1080/10913670802609136
Jowett, S., & Lavallee, D. (2007). Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial
validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14, 245–257.
NCAA RECRUITING FACTS. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2016, from https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/
Recruiting Fact Sheet WEB.pdf
Park, J. (2009). Perceived coach-athlete relationships, needs satisfaction, and physical and psychological well-being: An
intra- individual analysis. Korean Journal of Sport Psychology, 20,177-191.
Rees, T., Ingledew, D. K., & Hardy, L. (1999). Social support dimensions and components of performance in tennis.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 421–429. doi:10.1080=026404199365948
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. http://doi.org/dxq9qk
Yang, S. X., & Jowett, S. (2013). The Psychometric Properties of the Short and Long Versions of the Coach–Athlete
Relationship Questionnaire. Measurement In Physical Education & Exercise Science, 17(4), 281-294.
doi:10.1080/1091367X. 2013.83176

22. References
NCAA RECRUITING FACTS. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2016, from
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting Fact Sheet WEB.pdf
Park, J. (2009). Perceived coach-athlete relationships, needs satisfaction,
and
physical and psychological well-being: An intra-individual analysis.
Korean Journal of Sport Psychology, 20,177-191.
Rees, T., Ingledew, D. K., & Hardy, L. (1999). Social support dimensions and
components of performance in tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17,
421– 429. doi:10.1080=026404199365948
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 54-67. http://doi.org/dxq9qk
Yang, S. X., & Jowett, S. (2013). The Psychometric Properties of the Short
and
Long Versions of the Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire.
Measurement In Physical Education & Exercise Science, 17(4), 281-
294.