Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping

© 2019 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives: We tested a conceptually grounded model linking athlete perceptions of strength and conditioning and technical coach doping confrontation efficacy (DCE) with athletes’...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Boardley, I.D., Smith, A.L., Ntoumanis, Nikos, Gucciardi, Daniel, Harris, T.S.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/76602
_version_ 1848763728885972992
author Boardley, I.D.
Smith, A.L.
Ntoumanis, Nikos
Gucciardi, Daniel
Harris, T.S.
author_facet Boardley, I.D.
Smith, A.L.
Ntoumanis, Nikos
Gucciardi, Daniel
Harris, T.S.
author_sort Boardley, I.D.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description © 2019 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives: We tested a conceptually grounded model linking athlete perceptions of strength and conditioning and technical coach doping confrontation efficacy (DCE) with athletes’ doping self-regulatory efficacy (SRE), doping moral disengagement (MD), and susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping. Design: Cross-sectional, correlational. Methods: Participants were high-level athletes (nmale = 532; nfemale = 290) recruited in Australia (n = 261), the UK (n = 300), and the USA (n = 261). All participants completed questionnaires assessing the variables alongside a variant of the randomized response technique to estimate the prevalence of doping. Results: The estimated prevalence of intentional doping in the sample was 13.9%. Structural equation modeling established: (a) perceptions of technical and strength and conditioning coaches’ DCE positively predicted doping SRE; (b) doping SRE negatively predicted doping MD; (c) doping MD positively predicted susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping; and (d) the predictive effects of coach perceptions on susceptibility to doping were mediated by doping SRE and doping MD. Multisample analyses demonstrated these predictive effects were invariant between males and females and across the three countries represented. Conclusions: The findings show the conceptually grounded model to offer extended understanding of how multiple individuals within the athlete support personnel network may influence athlete doping.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T11:08:05Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-76602
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
language eng
last_indexed 2025-11-14T11:08:05Z
publishDate 2019
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-766022019-10-21T02:26:50Z Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping Boardley, I.D. Smith, A.L. Ntoumanis, Nikos Gucciardi, Daniel Harris, T.S. drug-seeking behavior moral disengagement multisample analyses performance-enhancing substances self-regulatory efficacy © 2019 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives: We tested a conceptually grounded model linking athlete perceptions of strength and conditioning and technical coach doping confrontation efficacy (DCE) with athletes’ doping self-regulatory efficacy (SRE), doping moral disengagement (MD), and susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping. Design: Cross-sectional, correlational. Methods: Participants were high-level athletes (nmale = 532; nfemale = 290) recruited in Australia (n = 261), the UK (n = 300), and the USA (n = 261). All participants completed questionnaires assessing the variables alongside a variant of the randomized response technique to estimate the prevalence of doping. Results: The estimated prevalence of intentional doping in the sample was 13.9%. Structural equation modeling established: (a) perceptions of technical and strength and conditioning coaches’ DCE positively predicted doping SRE; (b) doping SRE negatively predicted doping MD; (c) doping MD positively predicted susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping; and (d) the predictive effects of coach perceptions on susceptibility to doping were mediated by doping SRE and doping MD. Multisample analyses demonstrated these predictive effects were invariant between males and females and across the three countries represented. Conclusions: The findings show the conceptually grounded model to offer extended understanding of how multiple individuals within the athlete support personnel network may influence athlete doping. 2019 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/76602 10.1111/sms.13489 eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ fulltext
spellingShingle drug-seeking behavior
moral disengagement
multisample analyses
performance-enhancing substances
self-regulatory efficacy
Boardley, I.D.
Smith, A.L.
Ntoumanis, Nikos
Gucciardi, Daniel
Harris, T.S.
Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title_full Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title_fullStr Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title_full_unstemmed Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title_short Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
title_sort perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping
topic drug-seeking behavior
moral disengagement
multisample analyses
performance-enhancing substances
self-regulatory efficacy
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/76602