See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234092807

Development of the Coach-Athlete Relationship Maintenance

Questionnaire (CARM-Q) Development of the Coach-Athlete
Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire (CARM-Q)

Article  in  International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · March 2012

DOI: 10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.121

CITATIONS READS

28 4,436

2 authors:

Daniel J A Rhind Sophia Jowett

Brunel University London Loughborough University
56 PUBLICATIONS   991 CITATIONS    133 PUBLICATIONS   6,663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Conflict between coahes and athletes View project

psychology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sophia Jowett on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Development of the Coach-Athlete
Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire
(CARM-Q)
by

Daniel J. A. Rhind and Sophia Jowett

Reprinted from

International Journal of

Sports Science
& Coaching
Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 121

Development of the Coach-Athlete

Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire
(CARM-Q)
Daniel J. A. Rhind1 and Sophia Jowett2
1School of Sport and Education, Brunel University, Kingston Lane,
Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK
E-mail: Daniel.Rhind@Brunel.ac.uk
2School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences,

Loughborough University, UK
E-mail: S.Jowett@lboro.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
This study developed and gained initial evidence for the reliability and
validity of a measure of the use of maintenance strategies within the
coach-athlete relationship (coach-athlete relationship maintenance
questionnaire: CARM-Q). In study one, 50 items were generated based on
Rhind and Jowett’s COMPASS model, which suggests that conflict
management, openness, motivation, positivity, advice, support, and social
networks are key strategies for maintaining the quality of coach-athlete
relationships. The content validity of these items was established using an
expert panel. The items were then administered to 251 participants (146
athletes and 105 coaches). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used
to identify the latent underlying structure. A 28 item measure was created
with 7 sub-scales measuring: conflict management, openness,
motivational, preventative, assurance, support, and social network
strategies. Initial evidence for the internal consistency and criterion validity
of the CARM-Q was found. In study two, the CARM-Q was administered to
an independent sample of 212 coaches and athletes. Further statistical
support for the structural validity of the new measure was found. Future
research directions are considered and the contribution that this research
can make to coach and athlete education programs is discussed.

Key words: Coach-Athlete Relationship, Psychometrics

INTRODUCTION
This study involves the development of the coach-athlete relationship maintenance
questionnaire (CARM-Q) which is based on Rhind and Jowett’s [1] COMPASS model.
COMPASS is an acronym referring to seven maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete
relationship. Within the United Kingdom, there is a current shift towards the

Reviewers: Sean Cumming (University of Bath, UK)

Gloria Solomon (Texas Christian University, USA)
122 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

“professionalization” of coaching [2]. Education is a key part of this transition and the coach-
athlete relationship has been identified as a prominent issue within coach education [3]. Such
education needs to be grounded on sound scientific evidence. Research has been conducted
over the past twenty years significantly increasing our understanding of the content and
nature of coach-athlete relationships [4-8]. However, very little research has considered the
strategies used in developing and maintaining the quality of such relationships. Thus, the
present study aims to contribute to this gap in the literature by developing an instrument to
measure the use of maintenance strategies within the coach-athlete relationship.
The coach-athlete relationship has been defined as “the situation in which coaches’ and
athletes’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors are mutually and causally inter-connected”
[9, p. 245]. This definition emphasizes the bi-directional nature of such relationships, whilst
acknowledging the need to consider relationship members’ feelings, thoughts, and behaviors
[10].
Jowett [11] developed the 3+1C conceptualization of the coach-athlete relationship. This
model and the previous 3C model (closeness, co-orientation, and complementarity) were
employed in multiple qualitative investigations [12]. The 3+1C conceptualization
incorporates the constructs of closeness (the affective element: e.g., respect, trust, and
liking), commitment (the cognitive element: e.g., the members’ intentions to maintain the
relationship), and complementarity (the behavioral element: e.g., co-operative and
corresponding behaviors of affiliation). The “+1” element of this conceptualization is co-
orientation, referring to the degree to which the athlete’s and the coach’s perceptions are
interconnected. It contains two perspectives: the direct perspective reflecting how one person
feels, thinks, and behaves towards the other (e.g., ‘I trust my coach/athlete’) and the meta-
perspective reflected in the way the athlete or the coach perceives the other feels, thinks ,and
behaves [13] (e.g., ‘My coach/athlete trusts me’). Research has demonstrated the importance
of having a shared understanding [4, 12].
The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) developed by Jowett and
colleagues [9, 13] assesses the direct and meta perceptions of the quality of coach-athlete
relationships. Studies have demonstrated positive associations between coach-athlete
interactions and satisfaction [6] self-esteem [14] and subjective performance [15].
Rhind and Jowett [15] developed a longer version of the Coach-Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q), both its direct perspective [9] and meta-perspective [13]. Evidence
for the content validity of the included items was demonstrated using expert panels of
coaches, athletes, sport psychologists and academics. Evidence for criterion validity was
shown through strong correlations between the closeness, commitment, and
complementarity sub-scales and measures of perceived performance and satisfaction. Data
were found to demonstrate good model fit indices to the 3+1C conceptualization. The RCFI
(direct = .95 and meta = .97), the NNFI (direct = .94 and meta = .96), and the RMSEA (direct
= .07 and meta = .07) all met the recommended criteria for an acceptable model fit [16, 17].
The 3+1C conceptualisation and the associated measures have significantly enhanced our
understanding of the nature, content and importance of the role played by the coach-athlete
relationship. Despite this, there remains great scope for research in this field. Jowett and
Poczwardowski [18] advocated research into the processes which govern the quality of this
relationship. In other words, what strategies are used to maintain the quality of the coach-
athlete relationship? Such research is important as it can inform all of the key stakeholders
regarding the steps that can be taken to optimise the quality of relationships. This can in turn
help to ensure that coaches and athletes can experience the many positive associations of
having an effective relationship.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 123

Dindia and Canary described relational maintenance as “the strategies used to keep a
relationship in a specified state or condition,” [19, p. 163] Wiegel and Ballard-Reisch [20]
suggested that these strategies are the main ways by which individuals maintain the quality
of interpersonal relationships. The initial studies of relationship maintenance focused on
dating or married couples (e.g., [21, 22]). However, more recently, the principles and
concepts of relationship maintenance have been applied to parent-child relationships [23]
and friendships [24].
Stafford and Canary [22] developed a measure of relationship maintenance. Based on
factor analysis, five strategies were identified: Positivity, Assurance, Openness, Shared Tasks
and Social Networks. Canary and Stafford [25] argued that maintenance strategies enable the
continuation of interpersonal relationships through their enhancement, preventing their
decline, and facilitating their repair and re-establishment. Canary and Stafford suggested that
these strategies also “affect the nature of the relationship” [26, p. 9]. Subsequent research
into romantic, marital, and familial relationships using Stafford and Canary’s [22] measure
has supported this view by demonstrating strong links between relationship maintenance and
relationship quality. Associations were found with the affective elements, such as liking,
trust, and love [22, 26, 27], the behavioral elements, such as affinity seeking and control
mutuality [26, 28], and the cognitive elements, such as commitment of interpersonal
relationships ([26, 27].
Based on this evidence, there is merit in studying whether such associations exist within
the coach-athlete relationship. As Stafford and Canary’s [22] instrument was specifically
designed for investigating the maintenance of romantic and marital relationships, many of
the items were not relevant to coach-athlete relationships. Although the CART-Q already
exists as a measure of relationship quality, there remains a distinct difference between
relationship quality and the use of maintenance strategies, hence there is a need to develop a
new measure specifically designed for the sporting arena.
Limited research in sport psychology has indirectly addressed maintenance strategies. For
instance, Gould et al. [29] interviewed ten American football coaches, who all received
awards for their achievements in their personal development. Relationship skills, and in
particular the ability to communicate effectively, were cited as being key attributes of these
coaches. Such findings support the view of Becker [4] who highlighted the importance of
good communication. The coaches reported that they developed their athletes’ trust and
respect (defined as closeness within Jowett’s [11, 30] conceptualization) through winning
records, having clear expectations, and holding players accountable to them, whilst
consistently showing that they cared about their players as people.
The importance of the role played by social support, both perceived and received, in
maintaining good relationships has also been emphasized [31]. Research focusing on
coaches’ behaviors has consistently illustrated that supportive and encouraging coaches were
more likely to have a positive impact on their athletes’ development [14], particularly when
their athletes were less confident about themselves [32]. Trzaskoma-Bicserdy et al. [33]
interviewed twelve international Hungarian coaches and three international Hungarian
athletes, who highlighted the importance of supporting behaviors, expectations, and an
ongoing exchange of information through regular communication.
In the first study to directly investigate maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete
relationship, Rhind and Jowett [1] interviewed six coaches and six athletes from a range of
competitive levels and sports. The athletes consisted of: an international ice skater (25,
female), an international discus thrower (25, male), a national rower (24, female), an elite
university footballer (23, female), an elite university hockey player (18, female) and a
124 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

national karate player (22, male). The coaches consisted of: a county tennis coach (25, male),
a national football coach (32, male), an elite university archery coach (23, male), an elite
university football coach (27, female), a national trampolining coach (23, female) and a
county squash coach (57, male). Participants were invited to think about times when they
were close, committed or complementary with their coach/athlete and to talk about the
strategies employed to develop and maintain such a relational situation. Seven themes
emerged from the data after a content analysis. The first strategy, conflict management,
focused on whether a coach and athlete identify, discuss, resolve, and monitor potential areas
of conflict within their relationship. The second strategy, openness, concerned whether the
coach and athlete share relevant information and maintain a good level of communication.
Motivational strategies were the third emerging category. These related to whether a coach
or athlete maintains a reason for continuing the work with their athlete or coach (e.g., setting
and achieving goals, making the interactions enjoyable). The fourth strategy, positivity,
referred to being upbeat during interactions. Advice was the fifth strategy and involved a
coach or athlete giving feedback regarding training, performance and personal difficulties.
The sixth strategy was support and referred to helping one’s sporting partner to overcome
sport-related (e.g., poor performance or injury) or personal problems (e.g., a family crisis).
This support strategy therefore contained the assurance strategy highlighted by Stafford and
Canary [22]. The final strategy, social networks, related to having mutual friends and
socializing together. These seven categories form the COMPASS model of relationship
maintenance in sport [1]. The COMPASS model suggests that the use of these strategies
helps to maintain the quality of a coach-athlete relationship. However, in order to empirically
investigate this assertion there was a need to develop a specific instrument.
The aim of the current research was, therefore, to develop a measure of the use of
maintenance strategies within the coach-athlete relationship based on the COMPASS model.
Initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the newly developed measure was also
tested. The process recommended by DeVellis [34] in developing an instrument was
followed in the present study. This process comprises four phases designed to assess the
content (Phase 1), factorial (Phase 2), and criterion validity (Phase 3), as well as the internal
consistency (Phase 4) of the CARM-Q.

STUDY ONE
PHASE 1: THE CONTENT VALIDITY OF THE CARM-Q
The aim of the first phase was to generate items and assess their content validity. The
COMPASS model provided the framework which guided the item generation process. A set
of 50 items were developed based on relevant research (e.g., [1, 12, 33]) and are presented
in Table 2.

Table 1. Initial Pool of items to Measure the Use of Maintenance Strategies

in the Coach-Athlete Relationship (Athlete Version)

Conflict Management
1. I apologize when I am wrong
15. I am understanding during disagreements
22. I listen to my coach during disagreements
29. I am patient during disagreements
36. I tell my coach what I expect from him/her
43. I tell my coach when he has/has not met my expectations
50. I try not to lose my temper during disagreements
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 125

Openness
2. I encourage my coach to share his/her feelings with me
9. I simply tell my coach how I feel about our relationship
16. I disclose what I want from the coach-athlete relationship
23. I like to have regular talks about our relationship
30. I am open about my feelings
37. I talk about where we stand
Motivational
3. I show that I am motivated to work hard with my coach
10. I show that I am passionate about our sport
17. I show that I am motivated to achieve
24. I state my opinions when we are setting goals
31. I work hard to achieve our goals
38. I try to motivate my coach
45. I show my ability as an athlete
Positivity
4. I am positive when I am around my coach
11. I try to be upbeat when we are together
18. I adapt my behaviors to suit the preferences of my coach
25. I show that I am a fair person
32. I show good sportsmanship
39. I am considerate of events in my coach’s personal life
46. I try to be flexible when scheduling training sessions with my coach
Advice
5. I tell my coach what I think he/she should do about their problems
12. I give him/her my opinions on things going on in his/her life
19. I give my coach praise
26. I give my coach feedback
33. I accept my coach’s feedback
40. I try not to be negative when giving feedback
47. I change my behavior based on my coach’s feedback
Support
6. I imply that our relationship has a future
13. I talk about our plans for the future
20. I stress my commitment to my coach
27. I give my coach support when things are not going well
34. I give my coach support when they are going through difficult times
41. I show my coach that he/she can count on me
48. I show my coach that he/she can rely on me even when things are not going well
Social Networks
7. I like to spend time with our mutual friends
14. I talk about our mutual friends and affiliations
21. I socialize with my coach
28. I spend time outside of training with my coach
35. I travel to competitions with my coach
42. I try to spend time with my coach during competitions
49. I celebrate our successes with my coach
126 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

An expert panel comprised of five members was asked to independently evaluate the
items (i.e., a sport psychology consultant, two sport psychology academics with related
PhDs, a coach and an athlete). Panel members independently read through the set of items
and indicated whether they thought each of them were “Representative” (i.e. does it represent
the construct of interest, “Relevant” (i.e., does it reflect the construct), “Clear” (i.e., is it
easily understood), and “Specific” (i.e., is it focused and not too general or ambiguous). They
indicated their opinions by circling “Yes”, “No” or “Unsure” for whether each item was
representative, relevant, clear or specific. A “Comments” section was also included under
each item to enable them to explain their responses and to suggest any alterations. Finally,
panel members were asked about the appropriateness of the pitch, flow, instructions used,
and presentation of the questionnaire.
Minor changes were made to the wording of some items. For example, ”where
appropriate” was added to the end of item 19 (i.e., “I give my coach praise”). Also,
“constructive” was added into items 26 and 33 (e.g., I give my coach constructive feedback”.
Finally, the stem “Thinking about your current coach-athlete relationship…” was also added
as the experts felt that this would ensure that respondents focused on the relationship and not
their behavior in general.

PHASE 2: THE FACTORIAL VALIDITY OF THE CARM-Q

PARTICIPANTS
A sample of 251 respondents took part in this study (49% were males and 51% were
females). Of these 42% were coaches (M age = 37.71, SD = 10.05) and 58% were athletes
(M age = 19.82, SD = 3.08). To be included, participants had to meet the following selection
criteria: 1) To have been involved in their sport for a minimum of six months; and 2) To have
been working with their current coach/athlete for a minimum of three months. Participants
were recruited from a wide range of individual (e.g., athletics, golf, and swimming) and team
sports (e.g., football, netball, and rowing), as well as a range of competitive levels:
recreational (2.0%), university (23.8%), club (25.4%), regional (23.8%), National (16.4%),
and international (8.6%). Participants were involved in their primary sport for a mean of 7.78
years (SD = 4.46). The average length of their relationship with their current coach or athlete
was 2.57 years (SD = 2.37), with the mean number of hours being spent with this person in
training each week being 4.57 hours (SD = 3.65).
A breakdown of these descriptive statistics for each competitive level is displayed in
Tables 2a and 2b. Participants from a wide range of levels were recruited in an attempt to
obtain a representative sample. It is acknowledged that competitive level is likely to impact
the nature of the coach-athlete relationship. However, as this is the first study on the use of
maintenance strategies, a broad approach was adopted to try and highlight the central
strategies which are key throughout coaching relationships.
Participants were reassured that any information they provided would remain confidential
at all times. They were also made aware that their participation was completely voluntary and
that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time.

INSTRUMENTS
The first section of the questionnaire contained the 50 items which had been developed
during phase 1. Seven items were included to assess each of the following themes: openness
(e.g., I encourage my coach/athlete to share his/her feelings with me), motivational (e.g., I
show that I am motivated to work hard with my coach/athlete), positivity (e.g., I am positive
when I am around my coach/athlete), advice (e.g., I tell my coach/athlete what I think he/she
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 127

Table 2a. Descriptive Statistics for the Study One Sample

Gender Type of Sport

Competitive Level Male Female Individual Team
Recreational n 1 4 4 1
% 20.0% 80.0% 80.0% 20.0%
University n 20 38 16 42
% 34.5% 65.5% 27.6% 72.4%
Club n 36 25 25 37
% 59.0% 41.0% 40.3% 59.7%
Regional n 26 32 33 25
% 44.8% 55.2% 56.9% 43.1%
National n 23 17 28 12
% 57.5% 42.5% 70.0% 30.0%
International n 12 9 17 4
% 57.1% 42.9% 81.0% 19.0%
Total n 118 125 123 121
% 48.6% 51.4% 50.4% 49.6%

Table 2b. Descriptive Statistics for the Study One Sample

Competitive Level Age Years training Hours training

with this coach each week
Recreational Mean 22.60 3.00 1.75
n 5 5 4
Std. Deviation 7.23 1.87 0.50
University Mean 24.84 0.97 3.13
n 58 58 58
Std. Deviation 8.47 0.43 2.26
Club Mean 25.84 3.83 3.58
n 62 62 61
Std. Deviation 10.92 3.00 2.34
Regional Mean 26.48 2.63 4.16
n 58 58 58
Std. Deviation 9.83 1.72 3.32
National Mean 33.50 2.38 6.50
n 40 40 40
Std. Deviation 12.02 2.61 4.47
International Mean 32.71 3.37 9.43
n 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 16.48 2.20 3.96
Total Mean 27.54 2.57 4.57
n 244 244 242
Std. Deviation 11.28 2.37 3.65
128 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

should do about his/her problems), support (e.g., I give my coach/athlete support when things
are not going well), and social networks (e.g., I like to spend time with our mutual friends).
Eight items were designed to measure conflict management (e.g., I apologize when I am
wrong).
The second section contained the 29 item direct perspective version of the long CART-Q
[15]. All items began with the prefix ‘During training…’ to emphasize that the questionnaire
is focused on the respondent’s sporting relationship with their coach/athlete. The long CART-
Q is comprised of 7 items, that measure closeness (e.g., I care about my coach/athlete), 10
items that measure commitment (e.g., I am committed to maintaining a close partnership
with my coach/athlete) and 12 items, that measure complementarity (e.g., I am organized).
The third section contained the meta perspective of the long CART-Q [15]. This had very
similar items to the direct perspective version with the only difference being that they were
re-worded to ask the respondent to think about how their coach/athlete feels, thinks, and
behaves. The meta perspective of the long CART-Q therefore measures meta closeness (e.g.,
my coach/athlete cares about me), meta commitment (e.g., my coach/athlete is committed to
maintaining a close partnership with me), and meta complementarity (e.g., my coach/athlete
is organized). Respondents indicated their agreement with the items on a 7 point scale from
1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 ‘strongly agree’ for all sub-scales.
The fourth and final section contained demographic information regarding the respondent
(i.e., age, gender, primary sport, and the length of time that they have been involved with that
sport), as well as their coach-athlete relationship (i.e., coach/athlete gender, highest level of
participation, the length of the relationship, and the amount of time that they spend training
each week with their coach/athlete).

PROCEDURE
As recommended by Duncan et al. [35], a range of recruitment methods was employed to
increase the success of the overall project. Firstly, National organizations, such as National
Governing Bodies (NGBs), from a wide range of sports were contacted via e-mail and/or
telephone to invite them to participate in the present study through providing access to
coaches and athletes. Secondly, clubs, groups, and societies were approached via their head
coach/manager. Finally, participants were recruited on an individual level through attending
sporting events, courses, and training sessions. Potential participants were provided with a
questionnaire either by e-mail, post or through face-to-face contact. Ethical clearance for the
study was obtained from the University’s Ethical Advisory Committee.

DATA ANALYSIS
Item analysis was conducted on the CARM-Q in order to identify and delete any items that
reduced the reliability of the sub-scales. Throughout this process, items were deleted/retained
based on statistical and theoretical evidence. In terms of the statistical criteria, Tabachnick
and Fidell [36] suggested that for an item to be retained it needed to meet at least two of the
following criteria: a range of inter-item correlations between .3 and .7, a minimum item-total
correlation coefficient of .4, and in increase in the estimate if an item was deleted. Decisions
were made based on previous research and the COMPASS model, thus ensuring that the
process was not purely data driven. Therefore, if an item loaded onto a scale other than that
expected, it may still be retained if the decision clearly makes conceptual sense.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to assess the factorial validity of the CARM-
Q. An oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was employed because previous research has
suggested that the various sub-scales are likely to be highly related (e.g., [27]). The
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 129

participant:item ratio of 5:1 recommended by Gorsuch [37] was met. For a factor to be
retained it had to contain at least 3 items [36] and a minimum Eigenvalue of 1.0 [37]. The
same item retention criteria used by Stafford et al. [27] in the development of their measure
of relationship maintenance strategies was used in this study. An item was retained if it had
a factor loading of at least .4 and a maximum cross-loading of .2 [36].
Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for the sub-scales to evaluate their internal
consistency. Pearson’s Moment Correlation Coefficient was employed to assess concurrent
validity. This enabled an investigation of whether the use of maintenance strategies are
associated with relationship quality, as would be suggested by the COMPASS model [1].
Confirmatory factor analysis was also used to assess the structural validity of the long CART-
Q.

RESULTS
Based on the item analysis, items 1, 2, 13, 20, 33, 35, 38, 40, and 42 were deleted leaving 41
items. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Bartlett = .86, p < .05) indicating that the
correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. As recommended by Tabachnick and
Fidel [36], a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was also conducted as Bartlett’s test can be
susceptible to sample size. The KMO of .87 exceeded the suggested value of .6, which
indicates that the correlation matrix is appropriate for factor analysis [36].
A PCA highlighted an 8-factor structure, which explained 80.92% of the total variance.
Nine items were then deleted as a result of having multiple cross-loadings over .2 (4, 5, 9,
11, 12, 16, 25, 32, and 49). A final PCA on the remaining 32 items produced a 7-factor
structure which accounted for 84.94% of the variance within the data.
Factor 1 contained five items: 8, 15, 22, 29, and 50 (see Table 3). They were all designed
to measure the same construct labeled as conflict management. Factor 2 contained 4 items
(7, 14, 21 and 28). This factor was labeled social networks as all of these items came from
this sub-scale. Factor 3 contained items 23, 36, 37, and 43. Two of these items were
originally designed to measure conflict management (36 and 43) with the other two coming
from the openness sub-scale (23 and 37). Factor analysis often requires conceptual
interpretability when items do not load on the sub-scale to which they were intended to load
[36]. Upon reviewing these items, the underlying conceptualization reflects a ‘preventative’
approach to maintaining the quality of the relationship. Thus, the items assess the ways in
which expectations are shared and the consequences of unmet expectations. This third factor
was therefore labeled preventative strategies.
Factor 4 was comprised of 3 items. Two of these came from the support sub-scale (41 and
48) with the other from the openness sub-scale (44). They all relate to elements of perceived
support in that they demonstrate how one will be there for the coach/athlete should the need
arise in the future. In the model developed by Stafford et al. [27], the factor ‘assurance’ was
identified. This appears to be an appropriate label addressing the underlying meaning of
these 3 items. Factor 4 was, therefore, labeled assurance.
Factor 5 contained four items, three of which came from the support sub-scale (6, 27, and
34) with the other designed to measure positivity (39). Three of the items appeared to address
the actual provision of support with item 6 relating more to the issue of assurance covered
by factor 4. As item 6 did not appear to conceptually fit with the other three items, it was
deleted and the factor was labeled support. Factor 6 was comprised of four items, which
related to advice (19 and 26), motivational (24), and openness (30). All of these items
concern the presence of positive and open lines of communication between the coach and the
athlete. This sub-scale was therefore labeled openness. The seventh and final factor
130 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

contained eight items. Five of these relate to motivational strategies (3, 10, 17, 31, and 45),
two items relate to positivity (18 and 46) and one item, which concerns advice (47). To
optimize scale length, the items, which were not designed to measure motivational strategies,
were deleted (18, 46, and 47). They had the three lowest factor loadings (0.55, 0.53 and 0.50
respectively) and their removal improved the conceptual focus of this factor. The remaining
five items comprised the factor entitled motivational.
Table 3 displays all of the factors alongside their Eigen values and the amount of variance
they accounted for in the data. The items within each factor are also given with their factor
loadings.

PHASE 3: CRITERION VALIDITY OF THE CARM-Q

Initially, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using EQS 6.1 for Windows [39] to
assess the factorial validity of the long CART-Qs as it is a relatively new instrument. The data
for both versions yielded good model fit indices for the first-order model, taken to represent
closeness, commitment and complementarity. The Robust Comparative Fit Index (direct =
.95 and meta = .97), the Non-Normed Fit Index (direct = .94 and meta = .96) and the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (direct = .07 and meta = .07) all met the recommended
criteria for an acceptable model fit [16, 17]. Further analyses using Cronbach’s alpha
provided support for the reliability of the long CART-Qs sub-scales: direct closeness α = .85,
direct commitment α = .88; direct Complementarity α = .88, meta closeness α = .87, meta
commitment α = .88 and meta Complementarity α = .89.
Concurrent validity was then tested using the criterion variables of direct and meta
closeness, commitment, and complementarity. The expectation that the use of maintenance
strategies would be positively correlated with relationship quality was based on three
reasons. Firstly, this assertion is supported by the findings of previous research on romantic
dyads [22, 27]. Secondly, coaches and athletes have previously reported that the use of these
strategies were associated with the quality of their relationships [1]. Thirdly, Rhind and
Jowett’s [1] COMPASS model also proposes that these variables should be positively
associated and hence this provides a theoretical justification for this approach.
The correlations within Table 4 indicate that each of the CARM-Q sub-scales were
significantly correlated with at least two of the long CART-Q sub-scales. This provides some
empirical evidence for the concurrent validity of the new instrument.

PHASE 4: INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE CARM-Q

Cronbach’s alphas were computed for each of the final sub-scales and they all exceeded the
.7 value suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein [40]: conflict management α = .95; openness,
α = .91; motivational, α = .99; preventative, α = .96; assurance, α = .71; support, α = .94;
and social networks, α = .95. These analyses provide some evidence of the internal
consistency/reliability of the CARM-Q.
Table3. Results of the Final Exploratory Factor Analysis of the CARM-Q Items

Factor Eigen Variance Items Factor

Value Explained (%) Loading
Conflict management (α = .95) 9.68 34.56 50. I try not to lose my temper during disagreements .90
29. I am patient during disagreements .90
15. I am understanding during disagreements .87
22. I listen to my coach/athlete during disagreements .85
8. I co-operate in how I handle disagreements .84
Motivational (α = .99) 6.14 21.92 3. I show that I am motivated to work hard with my coach/athlete .98
45. I show my ability as a coach/athlete .98
17. I show that I am motivated to achieve .97
31. I work hard to achieve our goals .96
10. I show that I am passionate about our sport .96
Preventative (α = .96) 2.92 10.44 36. I tell my coach/athlete what I expect from him/her .97
37. I talk about where we stand .95
43. I tell my coach/athlete when he/she has/has not met my expectations .95
23. I like to have regular talks about our relationship .87
Support (α = .94) 1.77 6.32 34. I give my coach/athlete support when they are going through difficult times .96
39. I am considerate of events in my coach’s/athlete’s personal life .90
27. I give my coach/athlete support when things are not going well .86
Social Networks (α = .95) 1.61 5.76 7. I like to spend time with our mutual friends .95
21. I socialize with my coach/athlete .94
28. I spend time outside of training with my coach/athlete .92
14. I talk about our mutual friends and affiliations .91
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012

Openness (α = .91) 1.34 4.80 24. I state my opinion when we are setting goals .94
26. I give my coach/athlete constructive feedback .74
19. I give my coach/athlete praise when appropriate .74
30. I am open about my feelings .70
Assurance (α = .71) 1.15 4.09 48. I show my coach/athlete that he/she can rely on me even when things are not going well .88
131

41. I show my coach/athlete that he/she can count on me .86

44. I show my coach/athlete that he/she can talk to me about anything .61
132 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of the CARM-Q and Correlations

with the Direct and Meta 3Cs

Direct Meta
Sub-scale Mean SD Clo. Com. Comp. Clo. Com. Comp.
Conflict management 4.72 1.37 .23** .61** .68** -.03 .38** .30**
Openness 4.92 1.20 .66** .18** .02 .48** .10 -.19**
Motivational 5.15 1.66 .16* .83** .51** -.17** .69** .08
Preventative 3.97 1.64 .08 .24** .42** -.13 -.02 .37**
Assurance 4.31 1.11 .23** .42** .30** .12 .44** .21**
Support 4.61 1.64 .32** .47** -.04 .15* .37** -.33
Social Networks 4.69 1.63 .50** .01 -.09 .44** -.08 -.13

NB. * p < .05, ** p < .01, clo = closeness, com = commitment and comp = complementarity

STUDY TWO
The second study aimed to administer the new measure to an independent sample of coaches
and athletes. This afforded a further assessment of the structural validity of the Coach-
Athlete Relationship Maintenance Questionnaire (CARM-Q) and provided more evidence
regarding the psychometric properties of the newly developed instrument.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
A sample of 212 respondents took part in this study (53% were males and 47% were
females). Of these 44% were coaches (M age = 34.99, SD = 9.36) and 56% were athletes (M
age = 21.48, SD = 4.71). The same inclusion criteria as that used in Study one were applied.
Participants were recruited from a wide range of both individual (e.g., Tennis, Triathlon and
Martial Arts) and team sports (e.g., Rugby Union, Cricket and Hockey), as well as a range
of competitive levels: recreational (3.5%), University (26.5%), club (30.2%), regional
(29.7%), national (4.5%), and international (5.6%). Participants had been involved in their
primary sport for a mean of 8.26 years (SD = 3.01). The average length of their relationship
with their current coach or athlete was 3.25 years (SD = 1.66), with the mean number of
hours being spent with this person in training each week being 5.12 hours (SD = 2.44).

MATERIALS
The administered questionnaire contained the 28-item direct perspective version of the
CARM-Q, developed in Study one. Respondents indicated their agreement with the items on
a 7 point scale from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 (‘strongly agree’).

PROCEDURE
The same recruitment methods as those used in Study one were employed.

DATA ANALYSIS
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using EQS 6.1 for Windows [39] to assess the
structural validity of the CARM-Q. Cronbach’s alpha was also used to assess internal
consistency.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 133

RESULTS
As in Study one, the robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure was employed due to
a relatively high normalized estimate of Mardia’s coefficient (multivariate kurtosis = 47.02)
as recommended by Bentler [41]. CFA was employed to assess the extent to which the data
fit M1, the hypothesized 7-factor COMPASS model. The data yielded good model fit indices,
which all met the recommended criteria for an acceptable model fit [16, 17]: RCFI = .96,
NNFI = .97, RMSEA = .06. A second model (M2) was also tested which hypothesized that
all items loaded onto a single factor. The fit indices were inferior to those achieved for M1:
RCFI = .89, NNFI = .88 and RMSEA = .12.
Structural validity was also tested through comparing the fit of M1 and M2 to the data.
Due to the non-normality of the data, the Satorra-Bentler scale chi-square statistics were
compared. In comparing M1 and M2 χdiff = 26.70 (p < .01). Thus, there was a significant
loss of fit when moving from M1 to M2, which lends further support to the structural validity
of the new measure and the associated seven sub-scales (i.e., conflict management, openness,
motivational, preventative, assurance, support, and social networks).
Further analyses using Cronbach’s alpha provided support for the reliability of the
CARM-Q: conflict management, α = .86; openness, α = .83; motivational, α = .88;
preventative, α = .86; assurance, α = .82; support, α = .79; and social networks, α = .80.

DISCUSSION
This research aimed to develop and gain evidence of the reliability and validity of a measure
of the use of maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete relationship. A 28-item CARM-Q
was developed and initial evidence of content, criterion, and factorial validity was
demonstrated along with the reliability of the sub-scales. The CARM-Q measures seven
strategies: conflict management, openness, motivational, preventative, assurance, support,
and social networks. Five of these strategies are present in the COMPASS model and hence
this study provides some empirical evidence that supports Rhind and Jowett’s [1] study.
The two elements of the COMPASS model which were not supported were positivity and
advice. The items which were developed to assess positivity cross-loaded on many of the
other sub-scales including motivational, openness, and support. Thus it may be the case that
positivity runs throughout the majority of the maintenance strategies rather than being a
single factor in its own right. Similarly, advice was not empirically supported. The associated
items cross-loaded onto the factors labeled openness, assurance, and support. Thus, although
advice was highlighted as a factor within Rhind and Jowett’s [1] research, it was not
empirically supported within this study as it appeared to be an element of many of the
maintenance strategies. It may be the case that advice is more central to the coaching
relationship, due to the key teaching component, than other interpersonal relationships. It is
therefore not a single factor in itself, but rather runs throughout many of the maintenance
strategies. Positivity and advice were statistically supported within Stafford et al. [27] study
and hence their omission from the final scale in the present study highlighted some further
unique elements of the coach-athlete relationship.
Preventative strategies replaced the positivity element of the COMPASS model.
Preventative strategies were conceptualized as being a theme under conflict management
within Rhind and Jowett’s [1] research. However, it was revealed to be a separate factor in
this study. The importance of clarifying expectations was highlighted within Trzaskoma-
Bicserdy et al.’s [33] qualitative study with respondents suggesting that the coach-athlete
relationship can be more effective if the coach and the athlete have the same expectations.
Preventative strategies have not been discussed within previous research and hence they may
134 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

be more salient within the coach-athlete relationship. The use of such strategies may be
influenced by many factors which merit further exploration through future research (e.g.,
team versus individual sports).
The advice element of the COMPASS model was replaced by assurance. This is a factor
which has been highlighted by the research of Stafford and Canary [22] and Stafford et al.
[27] regarding interpersonal relationships. It was conceptualized as being a theme within the
support category in Rhind and Jowett’s [1] study. However, the analyses in this study
suggested that support and assurance were distinct. The items within these new sub-scales
indicated that support relates to the actual provision of support, whereas assurance concerns
the knowledge that support would be there should the need arise in the future. Rees [31] drew
the distinction between ‘perceived’ (i.e., assurance in the CARM-Q) and ‘received’ support
(i.e., support in the CARM-Q). The CARM-Q therefore incorporates the two forms of
support and hence acknowledges the important role that they have been shown to play [14,
32].
Overall, this research contributes a measure of the use of maintenance strategies within
the coach-athlete relationship. Côté and Gilbert [5] highlighted the importance of
interpersonal skills as a key element of coaching effectiveness and expertise. The present
study contributes to our understanding of the specific interpersonal skills which may be
important. Related models of leadership have highlighted the need for congruence between
the required, preferred and actual coaching behaviours [6] and the importance of an athlete’s
perceptions of their interactions with the coach [8]. Maintenance strategies may play a
central mediating role in ensuring congruence and that athlete perceptions are understood.
The present study also expands our conceptualization of the nature of the coach-athlete
relationship through addressing key gaps in the literature addressed by Jowett and
Poczwardowski [18].
This research opens up many avenues for future investigations. For instance, the CARM-
Q needs to be validated with different samples to confirm the underlying seven-factor
structure and to assess whether it is salient within different populations (e.g., younger
athletes, coaches, and athletes in different cultures). Furthermore, the use of maintenance
strategies and their link with perceptions of relationship quality can be investigated in terms
of the antecedents which may influence such relationships. For example, the influence of
individual (e.g., coach’s and athlete’s age and gender), relationship (e.g., length of
partnership, typical versus atypical dyads), and environmental (e.g., different sports,
cultures, and competitive levels) factors could be explored. Also, future research could
investigate how maintenance strategies are associated with relevant sporting outcomes such
as performance, satisfaction, and well-being. The investigation of whether preventative and
motivational strategies play significant roles in other interpersonal relationships also merits
consideration.
There is also great scope for longitudinal and experimental research to investigate the
causal relationship between strategies and perceptions of relationship quality. Longitudinal
research would help answer questions such as whether using strategies subsequently
enhances the relationship or whether relationship quality increases due to other factors which
then effect the use of maintenance strategies. Indeed, it is likely that it is a reciprocal
relationship to some degree. Experimental research would also enable researchers to
establish whether training coaches and athletes to increase the use of maintenance strategies
would have a significantly positive effect on coach’s and athlete’s perceptions of the quality
of their relationship.
Such research would overcome some of the limitations of the present study. Firstly,
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 135

correlational research does not allow for conclusions regarding causality. Secondly, the
present study relies on self-report data. Thus, we have to take the respondents’ word for the
fact that such maintenance strategies are being used. The use of more observational research
methods may allow a more objective assessment of the use of such strategies. Thirdly, the
present research used independent coaches and athletes. As there is a move towards the dyad
being the unit of analysis in coach-athlete relationship research [38], it would be interesting
to conduct a similar study with coach-athlete dyads. Furthermore, coaches and athletes were
pooled in the present study. This ensured that a single questionnaire could be developed
which could then be made available in a coach and an athlete version. This enables the
questionnaire to be given to dyads in direct and meta formats and facilitate comparisons
between the members’ perceptions. Having said this, the different strategies may vary in
terms of importance and role for coaches and athletes, and hence this represents a limitation
of the current study. Further research is merited to explore coaches and athletes as distinct
samples. Furthermore, the coach-athlete relationship is likely to be influenced by the level of
competition due to varying experiences, expertise and reasons for participation. The present
study recruited participants from six different levels and this represents a limitation. Further
research will help to elucidate how the use, importance and nature of these strategies vary at
different levels.
It should also be acknowledged that very high alpha levels were found for a number of
the sub-scales in Study one. This may indicate that related items are worded too similarly and
that the underlying concept is not fully captured. Study one did involve participants
completing a questionnaire which contained over 100 items. This may have led to
participants not fully considering their answers and instead repeating the same response for
numerous items, thus reducing the variance. The alpha levels reported in Study two were at
more acceptable levels. This provides some evidence to support the content validity of the
sub-scales. Further research will help to explore the validity of the newly developed scale.

CONCLUSION
The CARM-Q provides a tool which can now be used to expand our understanding of the
coach-athlete relationship, particularly in terms of interpersonal communications, which
Jowett and Poczwardowski [18] highlighted as a key area of research in this domain. The
CARM-Q, alongside the COMPASS model and short and long CART-Qs, provides a basis
upon which coach and athlete education programs can be developed. The current research
can facilitate the drive towards developing and maintaining coach-athlete relationships that
are both successful and effective while developing coaches and athletes with optimal levels
of performance, satisfaction, and personal development.

REFERENCES
1. Rhind, D. J. A., and Jowett, S., Relationship Maintenance Strategies in the Coach-Athlete Relationship: The
Development of the COMPASS Model, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2010, 22, 106-121.
2. UK Sport, UK Vision of Coaching, UK Sports Council, London, 2001.
3. Department of Culture, Media, and Sport, A Sporting Future for All, DCMS, London, 2000.
4. Becker, A., It’s Not What They Do It’s How They Do It: Athlete Experiences of Great Coaching,
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2009, 4, 93-119.
5. Côté, J. and Gilbert, W., An Integrative Definition of Coaching Effectiveness and Expertise, International
Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2009, 4, 307-323.
6. Chelladurai, P., Leadership in Sports, in: Tenenbaum, G. and Eklund, R. C., eds., Handbook of Sport
Psychology, 3rd edn., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2007.
136 Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship

7. Lyle, J., Sport Coaching Concepts: A Framework for Coaches’ Behaviour, Routledge, London, 2002.
8. Smoll, F. L. and Smith, R. E., Coaching Behavior Research and Intervention in Youth Sports, in: Smoll, F.
L. and Smith, R. E., eds., Children and Youth in Sport: A Biopsychosocial Perspective, 2nd edn.,
Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA, 2002, 211-233.
9. Jowett, S., and Ntoumanis, N., The Coach - Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART – Q): Development
and Initial Validation, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 2004, 14, 245-257.
10. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E.,
Peplau, L. A. and Peterson, D. R., eds., Close Relationships, Freeman, New York, 1983.
11. Jowett, S., Interdependence Analysis and the 3+1 C’s in the Coach-Athlete Relationship, in: Jowett, S. and
Lavallee, D., eds., Social Psychology in Sport, Champaign, Human Kinetics, 2007, 15-28.
12. Philippe, R. and Seiler, R., Closeness, Co-orientation and Complementarity in Coach-Athlete Relationships:
What Male Swimmers Say About Their Male Coaches, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2006, 7, 159-171.
13. Jowett, S., Validating Coach-Athlete Relationship Measures with the Nomological Network, Measurement
in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 2009, 13, 1-18.
14. Coatsworth, J. D. and Conroy, D. E., Enhancing the Self-Esteem of Youth Swimmers Through Coaching
Training: Gender and Age Effects, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2006, 7, 173-192.
15. Rhind, D. J. A. and Jowett, S., Initial Evidence for the Criterion-Related and Structural Validity of the Long
Versions of the Direct and Meta-Perspectives of the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire, European
Journal of Sport Science, 2010, 10, 359-370.
16. Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R., Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, Sociological Methods and
Research, 1993, 21, 230-258.
17. Kline, R. B., Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, London, 2005.
18. Jowett, S. and Poczwardowski, A., Understanding the Coach-Athlete Relationship, in: Jowett, S. and
Lavallee, D., eds., Social Psychology in Sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, 2007, 3-14.
19. Dindia, K. and Canary, D. J., Definitions and Theoretical Perspectives on Maintaining Relationships, Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 1993, 10, 163-173.
20. Wiegel, D. J. and Ballard-Reisch, D. S., The Influence of Marital Duration on the Use of Relationship
Maintenance Behaviors, Communication Reports, 1999, 12, 59-70.
21. Dainton, M. and Stafford, L., Routine Maintenance Behaviors: A Comparison of Relationship Type, Partner
Similarity and Sex Differences, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1993, 10, 255-271.
22. Stafford, L. and Canary, D. J., Maintenance Strategies and Romantic Relationship Type, Gender and
Relational Characteristics, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1991, 8, 217-242.
23. Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Evaluating the Effects of Attachment Styles on Relationship Maintenance
Behaviors in Father-Daughter Relationships, The Family Journal, 2006, 14, 135-143.
24. Bippus, A. M. and Rollin, E., Attachment Style Differences in Relational Maintenance and Conflict
Behaviors: Friends’ Perceptions, Communication Reports, 2003, 16, 113-123.
25. Canary, D. J. and Stafford, L., Maintaining Relationships Through Routine and Strategic Interaction, in
Canary, D. J. and Stafford, L., eds., Communication and Relational Maintenance, Academic Press, San
Diego, 1994, 3-22.
26. Canary, D. J. and Stafford, L., Relational Maintenance Strategies and Equity in Marriage, Communication
Monographs, 1992, 51, 243-267.
27. Stafford, L., Dainton, M. and Hass, S., Measuring Routine and Strategic Relational Maintenance: Scale
Development, Sex Versus Gender Roles, and the Prediction of Relational Characteristics, Communication
Monographs, 2000, 67, 306-323.
28. Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A. and Gonzalez, C., Affinity-Maintenance in Marriage and Its Relationship to Women’s
Marital Satisfaction, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1987, 49, 445-454.
29. Gould, D., Collins, K. B., Lauer, L. A. and Chung, Y. C., Coaching Life Skills Through Football: A Study of
Award-Winning High-School Coaches, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2007, 19, 16-37.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Volume 7 · Number 1 · 2012 137

30. Jowett, S., On Repairing and Enhancing the Coach-athlete Relationship, in: Jowett, S. and Jones, M., eds.,
Psychology of Sport Coaching, British Psychological Society, Leicester, 2005.
31. Rees, T., Influence of Social Support on Athletes, in: Jowett, S. and Lavallee, D., eds., Social Psychology in
Sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, 2007, 223-233.
32. Smith, R. E. and Smoll, F. L., Self-Esteem and Children’s Reactions to Youth Sport Coaching Behaviors: A
Field Study of Self-Enhancement Processes, Developmental Psychology, 1990, 26, 987-993.
33. Trzaskoma-Bicserdy, G., Bognar, J., Revesz, L. and Geczi, G., The Coach-Athlete Relationship in Successful
Hungarian Individual Sports, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2007, 2, 485-495.
34. DeVellis, R. F., Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2003.
35. Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., Duncan, T. E. and Chaumenton, N. R., Telephone Recruitment of a Random
Stratified Youth Sample for a Physical Activity Study, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2002, 24,
347-358.
36. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidel, L. S., Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Harper-Collins, New York, 1998.
37. Gorsuch, R. L., Factor Analysis, 2nd edn., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1983.
38. Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., and Jowett, S., Diversifying Approaches to Research on Athlete-Coach
Relationships, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2006, 7, 125-142.
39. Bentler, P. M. and Wu, E. J. C., EQS 6.1 for Windows, Multivariate Software (Context Link), Encino, CA
2005.
40. Nunnaly, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H., Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
41. Bentler, P.M., EQS Structural Equations Program Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA 1995.
View publication stats