The purpose of this study was to determine whether the relationship between coach leadership and athlete motivation was moderated by age, gender, competition level, and seasons spent with a coach. This study involved data from two previous studies that explored this relationship yet provides a novel perspective through the lens of important moderators. Three‐hundred and three athletes (M _age = 17.6 years; SD = 3.20; 49.7% women and 50.3% men) responded to questionnaires pertaining to their coaches’ leadership behaviours and their own sport motivation. Multiple regression analyses using moderators were conducted. Age, competition level, and seasons spent with the coach significantly moderated the relationships of interest. Coach transformational leadership predicted intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to a greater extent when athletes were younger than 20.8 and 18.2 years of age, respectively. Further, coach transactional leadership predicted intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to a greater extent when athletes had trained for more than two seasons with their coach. Results emphasize the need to consider athlete characteristics from both research and practitioner perspectives. Herein, we advocate for increased awareness amongst key sport stakeholders on the influence that a coach can have on younger athletes’ motivation and the importance of developing coach‐athlete relationships over time.

Although extensive sport research has been dedicated to understanding coach effectiveness, this work has largely explored how coaches’ behaviours influence individual athletes rather than considering the total team. Accordingly, we sought to examine the breadth of existing research involving the influence of coaches on team dynamics. Adhering to PRISMA for Scoping Review guidelines, 9,454 peer–reviewed studies were identified using four electronic databases, with 82 ultimately meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were grouped based on interpersonal, intrapersonal, and professional coach behaviours. Within these groups, team dynamics frameworks were used to explore the team–level variables. The results demonstrated that the majority of research has focused on coaches’ interpersonal behaviours on teams’ emergent states, while largely overlooking the influence of coaches’ intrapersonal or professional behaviours on teams’ structures or processes. We advocate for the diversification of methodologies employed and targeted investigations guided by established frameworks to better understand coaches’ influence on team dynamics.

Despite the importance of teamwork in the operating room (OR), teamwork can often be conflated with teamwork components (e.g., communication, cooperation). We reviewed the existing literature pertaining to OR teamwork to understand which teamwork components have been assessed. Following PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, 4,233 peer-reviewed studies were identified using MEDLINE and Embase. Eighty-seven studies were included for synthesis and analysis. Using the episodic model of teamwork as an organizing framework, studies were grouped into the following teamwork categories: (a) transition processes (e.g., goal specification), (b) action processes (e.g., coordination), (c) interpersonal processes (e.g., conflict management), (d) emergent states (e.g., psychological safety), or (e) omnibus topics (a combination of higher-order teamwork processes). Results demonstrated that action processes were most frequently explored, followed by transition processes, omnibus topics, emergent states, and interpersonal processes. Although all studies were framed as investigations of teamwork, it is important to highlight that most explored only one or a few constructs under the overarching umbrella of teamwork. We advocate for enhanced specificity with descriptions of OR teamwork, reporting practices pertaining to interprofessional demographics and outcomes, and increased diversity in study design and surgery type to advance understanding of teamwork and its implications.

The underrepresentation of female research participants, women, and girls has been highlighted as an issue of concern within a variety of research areas and disciplines across academia. More specifically, this lack of visibility has contributed to widening knowledge gaps regarding these populations while also perpetuating and strengthening existing inequities. Given these concerns, the purpose of this review was to explore whether similar imbalances could exist within the sport psychology literature and, if so, what future research projects might be completed to rectify these issues. To do so, all articles (n = 3,005) published between the years of 2011 and 2021 in five journals of sport psychology were assessed. Following an analysis of the relevant studies collected, it was found that more articles including all boys, men, and male athletes (n = 343) were published within this time frame compared with articles including exclusively girls, women, and female athletes (n = 155). Additionally, it also appeared that research working with girls, women, and female athletes was lacking: (a) in recreational sport, (b) at both young and older ages, and (c) within team sport contexts. Further, most of the studies assessed often conflated participant sex- and gender-descriptive terminology. As such, it is highly encouraged that researchers in sport psychology make greater strides to conduct purposeful and targeted research focusing on girls, women, and female athlete participants and their specific issues over the coming years.

Despite conceptual advances and preliminary associations highlighting the benefits of thriving in sport, opportunities for continued research are numerous. Notably, sport-specific research involving thriving has predominantly taken an individual athlete perspective. Interestingly, evidence from the organisational domain suggests that thriving can manifest at a collective level through interdependent team member interactions. Given the potential for thriving to emerge as a higher-level phenomenon in interdependent sport, a critique of thriving at the group-level is advanced. More specifically, we provide a summary of existing individual athlete thriving literature and organisational thriving research at the group-level (Part 1), propose three approaches to conceptualising thriving in interdependent sport (i.e. common, team, and collective thriving) grounded in multilevel research (Part 2), pose guiding questions and key considerations for future exploration (Part 3), and conclude by emphasising the potential value of examining thriving as a higher-level construct for sport researchers and invested partners (Part 4).

The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that shape athletes’ perceptions and experiences of subgroups, with the purview of advancing a sport subgroup conceptualisation. We employed a four-phase qualitative design grounded in critical realism, whereby we: (1) conducted six focus group interviews (n = 28 interuniversity athletes), (2) proposed a preliminary conceptualisation based on relevant theory and themes from Phase 1, (3) undertook a conceptualisation review process with group dynamics scholars (n = 5), and (4) reengaged six athletes from Phase 1 for individual reflection interviews. Our resulting conceptualisation suggests that experiences with subgroups are based on the extent to which athletes recognise their presence (i.e., observability) and the associated behaviours (i.e., behavioural) demonstrated by the observed subgroups. These two dimensions subsequently inform athlete affective, behavioural, and cognitive outcomes. We advocate for a nuanced approach to exploring subgroups in sport and provide suggestions for future research and practical advancements.