A.Y. Zagorodnikova¹
Dr. Hab., Professor O.N. Stepanova²
PhD, Professor V.I. Shalupin³
E.S. Kumantsova^3
1Russian State Social University, Moscow
²Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow
³Moscow State Technical University of Civil Aviation, Moscow

Corresponding author: anastasiazagorodnikova@mail.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to analyze and rank the youth sports training service quality determinants.

Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the first-stage questionnaire survey the 14-18 year-old sports school trainees (n=200), their families (n=70) and coaches (n=12) to find their opinions on and expectations as to the training service quality. The survey data were verified by a content-analysis of the relevant legal and regulatory framework to produce an updated second-stage version of the questionnaire survey form with a special emphasis on the youth sports training service quality. The new questionnaire survey ranked the training service quality factors on a 5-point scale (from 1-point unimportant to the 5-point extremely important elements). The questionnaire survey data and rankings were used to develop a factor model for the training service quality that puts the training service quality factors and elements into a single matrix to facilitate a factorial analysis with the Varimax rotation test.

Results and conclusion. The training service quality elements and combined factors analyzed above are unlikely inclusive enough; and we would recommend further studies to correct, amend and complement the training service quality rating and ranking database and analyses.

The training service quality profiling data and analysis may be recommended as benchmarks for the coaching personality and expertise excellence and junior athletes’ sports training service quality improvement initiatives.

Keywords: coach’s image, junior athletes’ training service quality determinants.

Background. Modern sports are increasingly competitive, with the competitive success no more assured by the one-way training intensity stepping tools only. In this context sports communities have to give a growing priority to the sports training service personnel quality on the whole and sport school trainers’ service quality in particular [3]. Most of the theoretical and practical studies of the training service quality assume it being directly proved by the trainees’ competitive accomplishments and physical/ technical progress within certain timeframes, although this assumption may not always be fair enough [ 12]. We believe that special studies may be beneficial to analyze the junior sports training service quality determinants.

Objective of the study was to analyze and rank the youth sports training service quality determinants.

Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the first-stage questionnaire survey the 14-18 year-old sports school trainees (n=200), their families (n=70) and coaches (n=12) to find their opinions on and expectations as to the training service quality. The survey data were verified by a content-analysis of the relevant legal and regulatory framework to produce an updated second-stage version of the questionnaire survey form with a special emphasis on the youth sports training service quality. The new questionnaire survey ranked the training service quality factors on a 5-point scale (from 1-point unimportant to the 5-point extremely important elements). The questionnaire survey data and rankings were used to develop a factor model for the training service quality that puts the training service quality factors and elements into a single matrix to facilitate a factorial analysis with the Varimax rotation test.

Results and discussion. Given in Table 1 hereunder is the training service quality factors ranking matrix with the factor analysis of the training service quality survey data.

Table 1. Youth sports training service quality factors ranking statistical/ factorial matrix

Note: the Table lists the factors with 0.5-plus weights only

As demonstrated by the above Table, the statistical model groups the training service quality elements into four categories/ factors. Factor 1 weighing 27.46% covers the ‘Trainee-dependent training service quality elements’ including the competitive progress motivations, training discipline, training aptitudes, physical and mental health protection/ improvement agenda, compliance with the Federal Sports Training Standards, competitive progress, promotions/ qualifications under the valid Federal Sports Training Standards etc.

Factor 2 weighing 21.72% groups the ‘Coach-dependent training service quality elements’ including the training and rehabilitation service management system compliance with the Federal Sports Training Standards, physical and mental health protection/ improvement service, training/ competitive process scheduling/ control system, encouraging trainees’ sports motivations, individual cultural/ motivational service if any, doping intolerance culture building in trainees, dieting culture building, etc.

Factor 3 weighing 15.44% covers the ‘training service system design/ management training service quality elements’ including the quality material and technical assets/ resources, good funding of the training service, good rehabilitation system and methods, harmonized progress prioritizing training service design; and healthy emotional/ progress facilitation team climate.

And Factor 4 weighing 7.61% refers to the ‘Coaching service quality elements’ including the coach’s professional expertise with the coaching motivations for the training service, and determined coaching skills upgrade agenda; plus the coach’s personality credentials with the appealing/ progress encouraging personality qualities; and the harmonious and friendly coach-trainee relationship.

The training service quality elements and combined factors analyzed above are unlikely inclusive enough; and we would recommend further studies to correct, amend and complement the training service quality rating and ranking database and analyses.

Conclusion. The training service quality profiling data and analysis may be recommended as benchmarks for the coaching personality and expertise excellence and junior athletes’ sports training service quality improvement initiatives.

References

1. Kalinin A.D., Karpov V.Y. Criteria for assessing psychological and pedagogical activity of maritime all-around coach. Izvestiya Sochinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012, no. 3, pp. 137-143.
2. Petrov A.B., Bodko S.P., Seisebayev V.K. et al. Training process efficiency criteria in professional sambo and judo sports. Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. No. 8. 2019. P. 98.
3. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of November 24, 2020 No. 3081-r "On approval of the Strategy for the development of physical education and sports in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030". Available at: https://minsport.gov.ru/documents/