running head: paralympic athlete leaders 1 2 leadership...
TRANSCRIPT
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 1
1
2
3
Manuscript accepted for publication in Journal of Sport Behavior 4
5
Paralympic Athlete Leaders’ Perceptions of Leadership and Cohesion 6
7
8
Jeffrey G. Caron1, Gordon A. Bloom1, Todd M. Loughead2, & Matt D. Hoffmann2 9 1McGill University 10
2University of Windsor 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Accepted July 13, 201523
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 2
Abstract 24
Group dynamics research in disability sport is largely undeveloped. The purpose of this 25
exploratory study was to understand Paralympic athlete leaders’ perceptions of leadership and 26
team cohesion. Ten Paralympic athlete leaders participated in semi-structured interviews. A 27
thematic analysis revealed two higher-order themes, which were labeled Athlete Leader 28
Behaviors and Roles and Building Team Cohesion. Participants reported they were responsible 29
for motivating, supporting, and communicating with their teammates and coaches. Additionally, 30
they felt their role was to assist and encourage teammates to live independently. They also 31
described the importance of organizing social gatherings outside the formal sport setting as a 32
way to influence team cohesion and enhance on-field performance. Results from this study are 33
among the first to investigate group dynamics within disability sport and are of interest to 34
athletes, coaches, health and performance consultants, as well as others involved in the coaching 35
and care of athletes with disabilities. 36
WORDS: 148 37
Key words: group dynamics; disability sport; athlete leadership; qualitative research38
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 3
Paralympic Athlete Leaders’ Perceptions of Leadership and Cohesion 39
Leadership has been identified as an important factor in achieving team excellence and 40
success in sport (Weinberg & McDermott, 2002). Research on leadership in sport has a long 41
history of investigating the role and contributions of the coach (Bloom & Salmela, 2000; 42
Chelladurai, 2007; Horn, 2008; Loughead, Hardy, & Eys, 2006; Rathwell, Bloom, & Loughead, 43
2014). However, a growing body of literature has begun to examine athlete leaders’ behaviors 44
and roles within the team setting (Bucci, Bloom, Loughead, & Caron, 2012; Dupuis, Bloom, & 45
Loughead, 2006; Price & Weiss, 2011; Vincer & Loughead, 2010). For instance, Vincer and 46
Loughead (2010) found that athlete leader behaviors were positively related to team cohesion. 47
Though athlete leaders’ influence on cohesion has begun to receive empirical support in the 48
literature on athletes without disabilities, their role in promoting and sustaining team cohesion 49
has largely been ignored in disability sport. 50
Research in disability sport has investigated a variety of topics ranging from 51
physiological variables (e.g., Edmonds, Leicht, McKean, & Burkett, 2014), to biomechanical 52
considerations (e.g., Starrs, Chohan, Fewtrell, Richards, & Selfe, 2012), to athletes’ psychosocial 53
outcomes (e.g., Banack, Sabiston, & Bloom, 2011; Martin & Whalen, 2012; Shapiro & Martin, 54
2014), to the role of the coach (e.g., Canadian Sport for Life, 2012; Coaching Association of 55
Canada, 2005; Cregan, Bloom, & Reid, 2007; Falcão, Bloom, & Loughead, 2015; Tawse, 56
Bloom, Sabiston, & Reid, 2012). Specific to coaching, research has revealed that coaching 57
athletes with and without disabilities is often very similar. However, there are unique aspects to 58
coaching athletes with disabilities such as an awareness of disability, accessibility, and creativity 59
in the pursuit of knowledge (Cregan et al., 2007; Tawse et al., 2012). Although the rehabilitation 60
and educational goals of athletes with a disability are appropriately individualized, they may 61
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 4
minimize group experiences and social interactions. In fact, athletes with a disability may have 62
reduced social networks (Lyons, Sullivan, Ritvo, & Coyne, 1995) and place considerable 63
importance on the social opportunities inherent in sport (Hanrahan, 2007; Wu & Williams, 64
2001), thereby highlighting the importance of developing social cohesion in this cohort. 65
Developing strong peer relationships, a form of social cohesiveness, has been shown to be 66
beneficial for athletes with a disability because it allows them to connect with similar others and 67
reduce feelings of social isolation (Martin, 2013). For instance, Goodwin, Lieberman, Johnston, 68
and Leo (2011) reported that adolescents with a visual disability who participated in a summer 69
sports camp felt a strong sense of belonging to the other group members who likely understood 70
what it meant to be visually impaired. 71
Athletes with disabilities have fewer opportunities for practice and competition (Nyland, 72
Snouse, Anderson, Kelly, & Sterling, 2000) and/or access to venues (Hanrahan, 2007) than 73
athletes without disabilities, which suggest it is also important to develop task cohesion within 74
this cohort. The majority of disability sports were created to incorporate athletes with varying 75
levels of physical function. As a result, these teams may have unique task goal constraints. For 76
example, in International Wheelchair Basketball, each player is classified into one of eight 77
categories. Higher categories represent players with greater functional abilities. The coach must 78
ensure that the five players on the court do not exceed a certain classification total at any point 79
during the game. As such, the five teammates will include players with greater and lesser 80
physical functioning who will be required to work together during games in order to function 81
effectively as a team. Thus, athletes with disabilities are dependent upon each other in ways that 82
do not exist for athletes without disabilities, as they strive for team task goals. Furthermore, it is 83
not uncommon for some athletes with higher functional ability to transport players of lower 84
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 5
functional ability to team practices. This presents a form of social interaction that is unique to 85
athletes with a disability and is not seen among athletes without a disability. Taken together, 86
studying cohesion in disability sport teams and the roles that team leaders play in facilitating this 87
process appears timely. 88
Carron’s (1982) linear conceptual model for the study of cohesion explains the 89
relationship between cohesion and leadership. Cohesion is defined as “a dynamic process that is 90
reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of its 91
instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, Brawley, 92
& Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213). Within this definition, Carron and colleagues (1998) noted that 93
perceptions of cohesion can focus on either task or social aspects. A task focus would reflect 94
more attention placed on achieving the group’s goals or objectives, whereas a social focus is 95
aimed at developing and maintaining relationships within the group. As Dion (2000) noted the 96
task-social cohesion distinction is viewed as being fundamental since it applies to most, if not all 97
groups. This conclusion concerning the task and social cohesion distinction emerged from 98
numerous models and lines of research in both sport (Carron, 1982) and organizational (Dion & 99
Evans, 1992) psychology. For instance, this line of conceptualizing cohesion has been used in 100
numerous studies examining all levels of sport including child (Martin, Carron, Eys, & 101
Loughead, 2012), adolescent (Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009), and adult (Callow, Smith, 102
Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009) populations. 103
In Carron’s (1982) model, leadership is one of four antecedents that are hypothesized to 104
influence cohesion. Athlete leadership is defined as an athlete who occupies a formal or informal 105
leadership role influencing team members to achieve a common goal (Loughead et al., 2006). 106
Formal athlete leaders are designated as leaders by their team. Informal athlete leaders emerge as 107
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 6
leaders because of their experience, knowledge, and interactions with other team members even 108
though they have not been formally designated as a leader by their team. Research examining 109
athlete leadership and cohesion has shown that both formal and informal athlete leadership 110
behaviors of training and instruction and social support have been found to be positively related 111
to both task and social dimensions of cohesion (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). For example, Callow 112
et al. (2009) found formal athlete leaders’ (e.g., team captains) leadership behaviors of fostering 113
acceptance of group goals and promoting teamwork, high performance expectations, and 114
individual consideration were positively related to task cohesion. Further, these authors also 115
found that fostering acceptance of group goals and promoting teamwork was associated with 116
social cohesion. Finally, using a composite measure of transformational athlete leadership 117
behaviors, Price and Weiss (2013) found it related to both task and social cohesion. Overall, 118
several studies have provided support for Carron’s (1982) conceptual model demonstrating a 119
relationship between leadership and perceptions of team cohesion. 120
In sum, research examining athlete leadership and cohesion has exclusively investigated 121
able-bodied populations, predominantly using quantitative methodologies. Unlike quantitative 122
research methods, qualitative data collection techniques would allow athletes the flexibility to 123
use their own words to describe their experiences in the disability sport setting (Braun & Clarke, 124
2013; Creswell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Interviewing is a qualitative research method that 125
has been used to obtain in-depth descriptions of individuals’ experiences or perceptions of a 126
phenomenon (Creswell, 2013; Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Researchers have noted that qualitative 127
interviews are particularly useful when investigating underexplored topics, as participants are 128
able to explain the how and why of their experiences (Creswell, 2013; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). 129
Thus, the current study utilized interviews with Paralympic athlete leaders to provide insights on 130
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 7
their perceptions of leadership and cohesion. The first purpose of this exploratory study was to 131
examine Paralympic athlete leaders’ perceptions of the roles of athlete leaders. The second 132
purpose was to understand Paralympic athlete leaders’ perceptions of cohesion on their teams. 133
Method 134
Participants 135
Scholars have long debated the appropriate sample size for studies using qualitative 136
interviews (Creswell, 2013; Padgett, 2008; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009; Smith & Osborn, 137
2008; Sparkes & Smith, 2014). The current study interviewed 10 Paralympic athlete leaders, 138
which is consistent with previous qualitative work in group dynamics (e.g., Paradis, Carron, & 139
Martin, 2014). Participants in the current study were six male and four female Paralympic athlete 140
leaders who ranged in age from 18 to 44 years and who competed in either interdependent (e.g., 141
Sledge Hockey, Wheelchair Basketball) or independent (e.g., Swimming, Wheelchair Racing) 142
sports. Participants had both congenital and acquired disabilities, which ranged from upper and 143
lower extremity disabilities and amputations, to paraplegia, quadriplegia, muscular dystrophy, 144
and cerebral palsy. Due to the relatively small number of Paralympic athletes in North America, 145
providing additional comments and details about the participants in this study could potentially 146
risk exposing their identities. 147
Procedure 148
Coaches and directors of high-performance sport centers in Canada familiar with 149
disability sport helped identify formal and informal athlete leaders (cf. Loughead et al., 2006) for 150
this study. Upon obtaining ethical approval for this study, a list of candidates were contacted via 151
e-mail and sent information on the purpose of the study. Those who expressed interest in 152
participating in this study identified a time and location for a face-to-face interview. At the 153
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 8
beginning of each interview, participants were verbally explained his or her rights as a research 154
participant. Each athlete provided verbal and written consent to participate in this study. 155
Interviews ranged from 60 to 90 minutes in length and occurred at a location selected by the 156
participants in their geographical region. 157
Data Collection 158
A semi-structured interview guide was created based on Carron’s conceptual model of 159
cohesion (Carron, 1982) and research in adapted physical activity, leadership, and cohesion. The 160
first section of the interview focused on gaining an understanding of the participants’ 161
backgrounds in sport, as well as a description of their disability (e.g., Briefly describe your 162
evolution in sport; Describe the effects of your disability on your daily life). The second section 163
was more specific to our research questions (e.g., Describe some skills and qualities of good 164
athlete leaders; Describe the importance of cohesion for your team). The third and final section 165
of the interview guide provided participants the opportunity to clarify statements made, ask 166
questions, or make additional comments (e.g., Do you have any additional questions or 167
comments you would like to add?). 168
Data Analysis 169
Thematic analysis was selected as the strategy to organize Paralympic athlete leaders’ 170
perceptions of leadership and cohesion. One of the strengths of thematic analysis is its flexibility, 171
as “it is not wedded to a specific theory” (Sparkes & Smith, 2014, p. 124). Consequently, 172
researchers using a thematic analysis have been encouraged to identify their theoretical 173
assumptions and approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013). As such, this study was guided by the 174
assumption of social constructivism (Creswell, 2013), whereby the research team assumed that 175
participants’ nature of reality was developed in coordination with others rather than 176
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 9
independently (see Clarke, Braun, & Wooles, 2014). That is, we assumed the meanings attached 177
to Paralympic athlete leaders’ experiences were co-created and influenced by everyday life in 178
North American society. Additionally, the approach used in this study was to focus on the 179
semantic meanings in the data, as opposed to other approaches (e.g., Interpretative 180
Phenomenological Analysis; Smith et al., 2009) that are rooted in the researcher’s interpretation 181
of participants’ experiences. Our approach is appropriate given that members of the research 182
team have not directly participated in disability sport. Therefore, we chose to focus on reporting 183
athletes’ experiences while offering limited interpretation. 184
The ultimate aim of conducting a thematic analysis is to organize and describe 185
participants’ experiences by inductively analyzing, identifying, and reporting themes in the data 186
(Sparkes & Smith, 2014). The current study followed the guidelines set forth by Braun and 187
Clarke (2006, 2013). Upon completion of the interviews, each audio recording was transcribed 188
verbatim and stored using the NVivo 10 software package (QSR International Pty Ltd). After the 189
final interview was transcribed, each transcript was read in its entirety several times to gain 190
familiarity with the data. The first interview transcript was selected to begin generating initial 191
codes. A code is a label that summarizes the meaning of a block of text. Braun and Clarke (2013) 192
noted that blocks of text could either be a single sentence or several sentences that encapsulate a 193
participant’s experience or meaning. After generating initial codes for the first interview 194
transcript, this process was repeated for the remaining nine transcripts. Initial codes from all ten 195
interviews were mapped onto a master list. Generating codes was viewed as an iterative process 196
whereby the master list was modified throughout the initial phases of analysis. Some examples 197
of these codes included “athlete leaders’ personal interactions with teammates”, “disabilities on a 198
Paralympic team”, and “athletes’ perceptions of team unity”. Once the list of codes was 199
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 10
finalized, similar codes were organized into higher-order themes. The themes were reviewed and 200
analyzed by each member of the research team to ensure they best represented participants’ 201
experiences and perceptions. 202
Trustworthiness. Although there has been much debate on the best ways to establish 203
trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry (see Smith, 2009; Sparkes & Smith, 2009), researchers are 204
encouraged to outline the measures taken to ensure the quality of their findings and to make the 205
conclusions more plausible and credible for readers (Sparkes & Smith, 2014; Tracey, 2010). We 206
followed Sparkes and Smith’s (2014) guidelines for reflexivity and researcher triangulation. 207
Reflexivity refers to being self-aware about one’s own perspectives and biases when analyzing, 208
interpreting, or reporting qualitative research findings (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). One method of 209
enhancing reflexivity is through the use of a “critical friend”, whose role is to provide a sounding 210
board and to encourage constant reflection throughout data analysis (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). A 211
co-author who was not present during the interviews served as the critical friend. The first author 212
and the critical friend met at each stage of the analysis to ensure the findings were rooted in the 213
participants’ experiences and meanings. In addition to reflexivity, the current study also 214
implemented researcher triangulation to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings. Researcher 215
triangulation is used to ensure that participants’ constructed realities are accurately represented 216
and interpreted by the investigators (Sparkes & Smith, 2014), and was accomplished by having 217
the authors of the present study converge on the analysis, results, and conclusions. All four 218
authors independently reviewed and agreed on the data analysis, the results and their 219
interpretations, as well as the conclusions drawn from this study. Having multiple researchers 220
converge on the same findings and interpretations helped to ensure that we, the investigators, 221
offered the most realistic representation of Paralympic athlete leaders’ experiences. 222
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 11
Results 223
Two higher-order themes emerged from the thematic analysis, and they were labeled as 224
Athlete Leader Behaviors and Roles and Building Team Cohesion. Quotes will be used to 225
illustrate Paralympic athlete leaders’ experiences and perceptions of leadership and cohesion on 226
their disability sport teams. Participants were assigned a pseudonym to identify their quotes and 227
to ensure confidentiality. 228
Athlete Leader Behaviors and Roles 229
Paralympic athlete leaders described the ways in which they provided leadership on their 230
teams. Specifically, athlete leaders said their role included motivating, supporting, and 231
communicating with their teammates and coaches. Athlete leaders reported that using a 232
democratic leadership style allowed them to include all athletes in the decision-making process 233
and thus accommodate for the variety of disabilities on their teams. Also, participants discussed 234
that encouraging and supporting teammates’ drive to live independently was an important aspect 235
of being an athlete leader. 236
All ten of the participants felt that part of their role involved motivating teammates during 237
practices and games: “As an athlete leader, I always try to help and encourage my teammates. If 238
I push them too much they’ll let me know. I know when to lay off the pedal a little bit (Allen).” 239
I try to motivate my teammates on the court and on the bench during games. When we’re 240
on the bench during games and down by a point or two, I try to keep the guys talking on 241
the bench and encourage the players on the court (Helen). 242
Sometimes you have to think outside of the box when your team isn’t in the best shape. 243
There was a time when my team was going through a rough patch because our point 244
guard wasn’t so motivated. One day when the point guard was in a bad mood, I told him 245
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 12
that another player [on the team] said he’s a has-been. The point-guard got so mad… but 246
it also got him fired up! He said, ‘I’ll show you who’s a has-been.’ Before a fight broke 247
out, I told the point guard the truth (Daniel). 248
Nine athlete leaders also felt that part of their role was to provide support for their 249
teammates. Specifically, they said they supported their teammates by developing close, personal 250
relationships with them: 251
I have always tried to support to my teammates. When new teammates arrive to the team, 252
I want to talk to them, get to know them, ask them where they come from, and what their 253
story is. If you can relate to them, they’ll feel more comfortable on the team (Helen). 254
Brian described a fellow athlete leader who was particularly good at supporting teammates: 255
I’ll tell you about one athlete who I looked up to. He would include people to go for 256
lunch or offer assistance any way he could. He was able to relate to everybody. He could 257
act 10 years old or 40 years old. He would have a lot of one-on-one interactions with 258
teammates. He was always available to chat or help you if you needed assistance. He 259
provided a lot of social support and advice to the athletes (Brian). 260
Regular communication with teammates and coaches before, during, and after the season 261
was another responsibility described by six of the athlete leaders. Because Paralympic athletes 262
are located across the country, the athlete leaders said they used a combination of e-mail and 263
social networking tools to communicate with teammates when they were not training and 264
competing together: 265
My teammates communicate well with one another. Facebook and e-mail make it easier 266
to communicate. We set up a Facebook group for players, coaches, and our sport 267
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 13
psychologist. We all live far from each other so Facebook is an easy way to keep in 268
contact (Francine). 269
More specifically, athlete leaders indicated their role was to have an “open line of 270
communication” with their coaches, and to act as an “intermediary” by relaying teammates’ 271
comments and suggestions: “If there are team things that need to be brought forward to the 272
coach, he expects them to come through the captains (Francine).” 273
I always talk to my teammates to make sure they’re satisfied with the decisions that are 274
made by the coaches. We have meetings to get their opinions to report back to the 275
coaches. Usually we put our teammates’ ideas together and bring them to the coach 276
(Erin). 277
Though the participants said they enjoyed their position as formal or informal leaders, 278
five of the participants felt that accommodating for the wide range of abilities on Paralympic 279
teams was an important—yet challenging—part of their role: 280
I try to accommodate for the different disabilities on my team. One time our coach took 281
us on a cave tour but I felt badly for [name of athlete] because she couldn’t see anything! 282
Before we get to a place, we discuss what’s best for the majority and try to make it 283
happen. This is important because a number of people on my team have visual 284
impairments (Gloria). 285
To help ensure they were effectively accommodating for their teammates’ range of abilities, 286
athlete leaders often included their teammates in the decision-making process, depending on the 287
type of activity or gathering: “As an athlete leader, the majority of the time I’ll include my 288
teammates in my decision-making but sometimes I’ll make decisions on my own. I’d say that 289
90% of decisions are made with the whole team (Daniel).” 290
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 14
Sometimes we make decisions on our own and sometimes we include the others. It 291
depends on the situation. For example, we ordered golf shirts for our last training camp. 292
We didn’t ask the whole group because we know how we’re supposed to look at events. 293
For other things, like going out to dinner, we would include everyone (Charles). 294
Five athlete leaders in this study felt that an important aspect of their role was to instill 295
the importance of personal independence with their teammates: “I think participation in 296
wheelchair sports teaches athletes to become more independent. The greatest thing for me is 297
seeing an athlete learn to do things on their own like pushing their chair (Allen).” 298
Independence is something we try to instill on our team. Some of the [players’] parents 299
are in the same hotel so they can go up to their parents if they need to get a hug or 300
whatever to make them feel at home. However, we try to separate them from that because 301
it can be a really hard habit to break (Charles). 302
Independence is really important on my team. From a player’s perspective, we try to push 303
everyone out of his or her comfort zone. We make sure everyone cleans up after himself 304
and they go get their own food. That doesn’t mean we refuse to help them [if they need 305
it] but we encourage them to do it on their own (Kyle). 306
These participants exuded pride when discussing instances when their teammates made 307
improvements with respect to developing personal independence. Athlete leaders believed their 308
role was to teach and support their teammates by giving them strategies aimed at overcoming the 309
daily barriers associated with living with a disability. 310
Building Team Cohesion 311
Athlete leaders described some of the ways they attempted to positively influence team 312
cohesion. In particular, they described how they organized and arranged social team gatherings 313
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 15
outside the formal setting, and the positive influence these gatherings had on team cohesion. In 314
addition, athlete leaders described how increased familiarity among teammates positively 315
influenced their competitive performances. 316
Eight of the athlete leaders in this study felt that social team gatherings outside the formal 317
sport setting were an important aspect of building and sustaining group cohesion. Participants 318
said they often coordinated these team gatherings with the assistance of both formal and informal 319
team leaders and coaches. 320
Sometimes you can have different factions within the team, and you’ll have unity within 321
those factions. When you come back together as a team, then those different factions 322
combine. Sometimes there may be about four or five guys that hang together, and another 323
four or five guys that hang together. These factions may be formed because people have 324
different views on things. I try to make them realize that this divide is not good and we 325
need to bring everybody together (Allen). 326
These participants described some of the team social gatherings in more detail: 327
I remember a time when my team really bonded outside of practice. We organized an 328
activity where we went to an amusement park all day. Even now, people will post a photo 329
from that day and will laugh about it. We tease each other about the silly moments. It’s 330
not all about sports (Francine). 331
Sometimes the other team leaders and I organize team-building activities. Last year we 332
did laser tag. It was really interesting, because you could hear the guys in wheelchairs 333
coming from a mile away. That activity was designed specifically for team-building. 334
Sometimes it may just be watching a hockey game in someone’s room (Charles). 335
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 16
Four of the eight athlete leaders felt these team social gatherings helped to develop a sense of 336
closeness among teammates, which they felt allowed their team to be strongly united on the 337
playing surface. They attributed their team cohesiveness to positive interactions both on and off 338
the playing surface: 339
I love all of my teammates. On and off the court they’re great. There are no cliques on the 340
team. We all hang out and eat together. Everyone’s so close. Some of the guys I play with 341
are my best friends (Jordan). 342
My team is pretty united considering the fact that we don’t have much in common in 343
terms of age and status. Some of our athletes are older, some are younger, some are 344
married, and some go home to change dirty diapers (Brian). 345
The relationships on my team are strong on and off the court. We relate well with one 346
another. On the court, there’s no, ‘I don’t like you so I won’t pass the ball to you.’ If 347
there’s a problem, we fix it, and we won’t bring our problems on the court or on the track. 348
We try to resolve problems quickly (Erin). 349
Eight athlete leaders described the ways in which team members’ varying level of 350
abilities influenced the group’s cohesion. For example, Erin and Gloria felt their team’s cohesion 351
was positively influenced by teammates having various types of disabilities. Gloria noted: “My 352
teammates and I have different disabilities and views on certain things because of our different 353
types of disabilities. We definitely approach things with different perspectives, which I think 354
helps our team cohesion.” Furthermore, Erin said: 355
I think having athletes with different types of disabilities affects our team’s togetherness 356
in a positive way. For example, we had a training camp and I remember going to the pool 357
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 17
and two blind guys were playing baseball with one of the amputee’s legs. Balls were 358
flying everywhere. I remember sitting on the side laughing with the others. 359
Allen and Helen noted that athletes’ levels of ability have impacted team cohesion. Specifically, 360
these participants described some of the challenges they encountered when socializing with 361
teammates outside the sporting context: 362
There are some challenges with having different disabilities on a team, like when an 363
athlete is not verbal and has trouble speaking to you; it can be pretty difficult to try to 364
understand what they’re trying to talking about or what they’re trying to do. Some 365
athletes can sign but it’s an adapted sign language, which makes it more difficult to 366
understand (Allen). 367
I think disabilities have an effect on how my team socializes. Sometimes it’s easier to 368
hang out with someone with the same level of function that you have. For example, if you 369
want to hop on the bus and go to the mall, some [of my] teammates are unable to do that. 370
There was an athlete who was visually impaired and had a guide, so it was difficult to 371
include him because we didn’t want his guide around. I think that types of disabilities do 372
impact our team socially (Helen). 373
Although the athlete leaders’ had differing opinions on how disabilities impacted team cohesion, 374
it was evident from their comments that disability sport teams faced unique challenges to build 375
and sustain team cohesion. 376
All ten of the athlete leaders felt that social team gatherings helped them become more 377
familiar with their teammates, which they felt ultimately affected their competitive 378
performances: 379
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 18
Team unity is important because it allows us to get to know one another’s strengths and 380
weaknesses. For instance, if I’m really close to a player, I’ll know that his right hand is 381
weak, so I’ll pass to his left hand. If I wasn’t that close to him, I wouldn’t have known 382
that and it might have affected our performance (Charles). 383
It tends to be around race time that [name of athlete] is a little bit more sensitive, so we 384
make sure we are all giving him more support and make sure he feels good about what 385
he’s doing. If we don’t, we all don’t perform well (Gloria). 386
Discussion 387
Given that little is known about group dynamics in disability sport, the results from this 388
study are among the first to understand Paralympic athlete leaders’ perceptions of leadership and 389
team cohesion. In general, the results showed that Paralympic athlete leaders believed they were 390
responsible for motivating and supporting team members, as well as communicating effectively 391
with both teammates and coaches. Not surprisingly, these roles and responsibilities are similar to 392
the behaviors and characteristics of able-bodied athlete leaders (e.g., Crozier, Loughead, & 393
Munroe-Chandler, 2013; Dupuis et al., 2006; Fransen, Vanbeselaere, De Cuyper, Vande Broek, 394
& Boen, 2014; Holmes, McNeil, & Adorna, 2010). In particular, elite athletes and coaches 395
recently revealed the importance of the motivational role exhibited by athlete leaders (Fransen et 396
al., 2014). A motivational leader was defined as an individual who encourages his/her teammates 397
to extreme limits in order to perform optimally (Fransen et al., 2014)—a description which aligns 398
closely with the Paralympic athlete leaders in the current study. Further, being motivated was 399
included as a key characteristic of being an effective athlete leader in Glenn and Horn’s (1993) 400
Sport Leadership Behavior Inventory. Paralympic athlete leaders also suggested that providing 401
support to teammates was a crucial role. This support is similar to the leadership behavior of 402
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 19
social support (i.e., caring for interpersonal needs of athletes) identified by Chelladurai and Saleh 403
(1980). In their review of the psychological environment in disability sport, Dieffenbach and 404
Statler (2012) concluded there were more similarities than differences between athletes with and 405
without disabilities. Our results appear to be in line with these conclusions and suggest that 406
athlete leaders with and without disabilities use similar leadership behaviors to support and 407
encourage their teammates, which is promising when considering the effectiveness of these types 408
of leadership behaviors in able-bodied sport (Price & Weiss, 2011; Vincer & Loughead, 2010). 409
The Paralympic athlete leaders felt it was important to regularly interact with both their 410
teammates and coaches. Effective communication is a vital component of team success 411
(Yukelson, 2006), and there is empirical evidence indicating that having effective athlete 412
leadership within teams serves to enhance communication amongst all team members (e.g., 413
Crozier et al., 2013; Dupuis et al., 2006). In addition, the finding that Paralympic athlete leaders 414
helped to relay teammates’ opinions and comments to the coaching staff supports previous 415
research (e.g., Bucci et al., 2012; Dupuis et al., 2006) showing that able-bodied athlete leaders 416
acted as liaisons between players and coaches. On a related point, athlete leaders in the current 417
study noted that e-mail and social networking sites such as Facebook allowed team members to 418
communicate throughout the year. These results are in agreement with Lampe and Ellison (2010) 419
who found that Facebook was an important communication tool for varsity athletes to coordinate 420
off-season training, keep in touch with teammates, and mentor younger teammates. Paralympic 421
athletes are often geographically isolated from their teammates and thus have fewer opportunities 422
for face-to-face interactions. Additionally, many Paralympic athletes do not receive substantive 423
financial support and/or sponsorships to cover the costs associated with travelling to regional 424
training facilities. This suggests the use of social networking tools may be especially important 425
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 20
for Paralympic athletes because it may break down certain logistical and financial barriers 426
related to communicating with teammates. Along the same line, research has demonstrated that 427
online communication was a viable alternative for individuals with disabilities (Braithwaite, 428
Waldron, & Finn, 1999). 429
The results also indicated the importance of using a democratic or participative leadership 430
style, which allows team members to have input in the decision-making process. According to 431
Carron and Spink’s (1993) team-building model, a participative style of leadership is thought to 432
influence perceptions of team cohesion. Further, Vincer and Loughead (2010) found the 433
democratic (i.e., participative) behavior of athlete leaders was positively related to task cohesion. 434
Likewise, though participants in the current study did not explicitly suggest that the other athlete 435
leader roles and behaviors identified (motivation, support) had a positive impact on their team’s 436
chemistry, previous quantitative research on athletes without disabilities has shown that similar 437
leadership behaviors exhibited by team leaders were positively related to perceptions of cohesion 438
(Price & Weiss, 2011, 2013; Vincer & Loughead, 2010). Thus, it is possible that the leadership 439
behaviors and responsibilities displayed by Paralympic athlete leaders had a positive effect on 440
their team’s level of cohesiveness. 441
Encouraging personal independence amongst team members was another key role for 442
athlete leaders. In particular, Paralympic athlete leaders commented on the importance of urging 443
team members to extend beyond their perceived limits related to daily living tasks. This aligns 444
with Wu and Williams (2001) who found that sport peers were important socializing agents for 445
helping athletes reintegrate into sport and the community following a spinal cord injury. 446
Similarly, previous research has shown that elite coaches of athletes with disabilities developed 447
them personally and athletically, which included helping them set goals in sport as well as in 448
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 21
their personal lives (e.g., Cregan et al., 2007; Falcão et al., 2015; Tawse et al., 2012). Banack and 449
colleagues (2011) studied the relationships between Paralympic athletes’ perceptions of coach 450
behaviors and found that athletes preferred an autonomy-supportive coaching style. Taken 451
together, it is evident that both athlete leaders and coaches in this population believe they are 452
responsible for developing independence amongst team members. Our results add to this body of 453
literature by providing one of the first empirical accounts that showed how Paralympic athlete 454
leaders’ enhanced the personal independence of their teammates. 455
The results also revealed the methods used by Paralympic athlete leaders to enhance their 456
team’s task and social cohesion. Specifically, athlete leaders placed significant emphasis on the 457
importance of social team gatherings and their impact on team unity. While it was noted that 458
some activities were organized for team-building purposes (e.g., laser tag), other gatherings were 459
often described as opportunities to socialize and interact with teammates (e.g., watching a 460
hockey game on television). The fact that team gatherings were important to athlete leaders is not 461
surprising as social opportunities have been found to be a key motive for sport participation 462
among athletes with disabilities (Hanrahan, 2007; Wu & Williams, 2001). Further, these social 463
activities served to increase the degree to which players felt a sense of closeness with one 464
another. Thus, it would appear that social cohesion (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) was 465
the primary outcome of team social gatherings. Further, the results provide theoretical support 466
for the importance of social and task cohesion within disability sport. That is, the results support 467
the theoretical distinction between social and task cohesion as advocated by previous researchers 468
(e.g., Dion, 2000; Eys et al., 2009) and also highlight the presence of both types of cohesion in 469
disability sport. The findings support Dion’s (2000) contention that social and task cohesion is 470
present in all types of groups, which can now include elite-level Paralympic sport teams. 471
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 22
Activities such as team goal-setting or outdoor adventure programs have typically been 472
used to enhance team cohesion (Martin, Carron, & Burke, 2009). However, team social 473
gatherings emerged as a preferred team building activity in the current study. Brawley and 474
Paskevich (1997) defined team-building as “a method of helping the group to: (a) increase 475
effectiveness, (b) satisfy the needs of its members, or (c) improve work conditions (p. 13).” 476
Using this definition, it could be argued that team social gatherings satisfied the interpersonal 477
needs of Paralympic team members and therefore acted as an effective form of team-building for 478
this population. In turn, this socially-oriented method of team-building assisted in the 479
development and sustainment of social cohesion. 480
Paralympic athlete leaders also felt that team unity was enhanced due to a high degree of 481
familiarity amongst team members. Participants noted that being close with team members on 482
and off the playing surface led to enhanced feelings of cohesion regarding task objectives (e.g., 483
resolving problems quickly allowed team members to remain united on the task at hand). 484
Although social cohesion was primarily emphasized by the athlete leaders in the current study, 485
the results also suggest that task cohesion was enhanced due to increased familiarity amongst 486
team members. In addition, athlete leaders believed that the bonding within the team from both a 487
social and task perspective had a positive influence on team performance. For instance, one 488
participant described how being close with a teammate could give him information about 489
whether to pass to the teammate’s strong or weak hand, an advantage that impacted team 490
performance. In a sport-specific meta-analysis, both social (ES = .70) and task cohesion (ES = 491
.61) were important factors that impacted the cohesion-performance relationship (Carron, 492
Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Results from the current study are among the first in the 493
disability sport literature to highlight the usefulness of a team-level construct to increase 494
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 23
performance. To date, the majority of research attempting to enhance performance in athletes 495
with a disability has focused on the benefits of psychological skills (Dieffenbach & Statler, 2012; 496
Hanrahan, 2015). It is hoped that the results of the present study will encourage researchers to 497
further examine group-level variables (e.g., cohesion) and how they impact team-level 498
functioning on Paralympic teams. 499
The results from the current study have some interesting applied implications for 500
athletes, coaches, and health and performance consultants, including the benefit of exposing 501
athletes with disabilities to leadership development and team-building strategies. With respect to 502
leadership development, recent research on athletes without disabilities has shown that 503
leadership training programs are important for enhancing the sporting experience (e.g., Blanton, 504
Sturges, & Gould, 2014; Gould & Voelker, 2010). The current results revealed the importance of 505
educating the disability sport community about motivating behaviors, democratic behaviors, and 506
social support. In terms of developing team cohesion, practitioners could utilize components of 507
Carron and Spink’s (1993) team-building model to enhance the cohesiveness of sport teams in 508
this population. Specifically, practitioners could provide athlete leaders with effective strategies 509
for the three categories of the model (team structure, team environment, team processes) that 510
contribute to team cohesion. This information may provide athlete leaders with novel team-511
building strategies that could be used to supplement team social gatherings. Similarly, coaches 512
are encouraged to allow adequate time in the schedule for athlete leaders (formal and informal) 513
to organize social gatherings and other team-building activities. 514
Future research in this domain is recommended and might consider the following 515
suggestions. First, the current study may not have identified all of the roles and behaviors of 516
Paralympic athlete leaders. For example, previous research on athletes without disabilities has 517
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 24
identified the additional leadership behaviors of intellectual stimulation, high performance 518
expectations, and contingent reward (Callow et al., 2009). Second, the results do not provide 519
insight as to which specific leadership behaviors and roles (e.g., motivation, communication) are 520
related to team cohesion. In the future, it would be useful to conduct regression analyses to 521
determine which particular leadership behaviors are positively associated to both task and social 522
cohesion within disability sport teams. Nonetheless, the results of the present study provide 523
athletes, coaches, and performance consultants with salient information concerning Paralympic 524
athlete leaders’ perceptions of leadership and cohesion. It is hoped that the findings will be used 525
to enhance the performance and well-being of athletes involved in disability sport. 526
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 25
References 527
Banack, H. R., Sabiston, C. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Coach autonomy support, basic need 528
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation of Paralympic athletes. Research Quarterly for 529
Exercise and Sport, 82, 722–730. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599809 530
Blanton, J. E., Sturges, A. J., & Gould, D. (2014). Lessons learned from a leadership 531
development club for High School athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 5, 1–532
13. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2013.848827 533
Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (2000). Personal characteristics of expert team sport coaches. 534
Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 6, 56–76. 535
Braithwaite, D. O., Waldron, V. R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in 536
computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication, 11, 123– 537
151. doi: 10.1207/s15327027hc1102_2 538
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative 539
Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 540
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. 541
London: Sage. 542
Brawley, L. R., & Paskevich, D. M. (1997). Conducting team building research in the context of 543
sport and exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 11–40. doi: 544
10.1080/10413209708415382 545
Bucci, J., Bloom, G. A., Loughead, T. M., & Caron, J. G. (2012). Ice hockey coaches’ 546
perceptions of athlete leadership. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 243–259. 547
doi: 10.1080/10413200.2011.636416 548
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 26
Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of 549
transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance 550
level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 395–412. doi: 551
10.1080/10413200903204754 552
Canadian Sport for Life. (2012). No accidental champions: Long-term athlete development for 553
athletes with disabilities. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Sport Centers. 554
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal 555
of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138. 556
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesion in 557
sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology 558
measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. 559
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance 560
in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168–188. 561
Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The Sport 562
Psychologist, 7, 8-18. 563
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to 564
assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport 565
Psychology, 7, 244-266. 566
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum and R. C. Eklund (Eds.), 567
Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 113-135). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 568
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of 569
a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45. 570
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 27
Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Wooles, K. (2014). Thou shalt not covet another man? Exploring 571
constructions of same-sex and different-sex infidelity using story completion. Journal of 572
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 153–166. doi: 10.1002/casp.2204 573
Coaching Association of Canada. (2005). Coaching athletes with a disability. Ottawa, ON: 574
Canadian Sport Centers. 575
Cregan, K., Bloom, G. A., & Reid, G. (2007). Career evolution and knowledge of elite coaches 576
of swimmers with a physical disability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 577
339–350. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2007.10599431 578
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five 579
approaches. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 580
Crozier, A. J., Loughead, T. M., & Munroe-Chandler, K. J. (2013). Examining the benefits of 581
athlete leaders in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36, 346–364. 582
Dieffenbach, K. D., & Statler, T. A. (2012). More similar than different: The psychological 583
environment of Paralympic sport. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3, 109–118. 584
doi: 10.1080/21520704.2012.683322 585
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. 586
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7-26. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7 587
Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the 588
construct. Small Group Research, 23, 242-250. 589
Dupuis, M., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2006). Team captains’ perceptions of athlete 590
leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 60–78. 591
592
593
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 28
Edmonds, R., Leicht, A. S., McKean, M., & Burkett, B. J. (2014). Daily heart rate variability 594
during an 18-day staging camp in Paralympic medallist swimmers. Journal of Exercise 595
Physiology Online, 17, 84–92. 596
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion 597
questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & 598
Exercise Psychology, 31, 390-408. 599
Falcão, W. R., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2015). Coaches’ perspectives of building 600
cohesion in Paralympic sports. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32, 206–222. doi: 601
10.1123/APAQ.2014-0122. 602
Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2014). The myth of 603
the team captain as principal leader: Extending the athlete leadership classification within 604
sport teams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32, 1389-1397. doi: 605
10.1080/02640414.2014.891291 606
Glenn, S. D., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Psychological and personal predictors of leadership behavior 607
in female soccer athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 17–34. doi: 608
10.1080/10413209308411302 609
Goodwin, D. L., Lieberman, L. J., Johnston, K., & Leo, J. (2011). Connecting through summer 610
camp: Youth with visual impairments find a sense of community. Adapted Physical 611
Activity Quarterly, 28, 40–55. 612
Gould, D., & Voelker, D. K. (2010). Youth sport leadership development: Leveraging the sports 613
captaincy experience. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1, 1–14. doi: 614
10.1080/21520704.2010.497695 615
616
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 29
Hanrahan, S. J. (2007). Athletes with disabilities. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), 617
Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 845-858). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 618
Hanrahan, S. J. (2015). Psychological skills training for athletes with disabilities. Australian 619
Psychologist, 50, 102–105. doi: 10.1111/ap.12083 620
Holmes, R. M., McNeil, M., & Adorna, P. (2010). Student athletes' perceptions of formal and 621
informal team leaders. Journal of Sport Behavior, 33, 442–465. 622
Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in 623
sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 239-268). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 624
Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2010). Student athletes on Facebook. In K. Inkpen & C. Gutwin 625
(Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 626
193-196). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. 627
Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete leadership. Journal of 628
Sport Behavior, 29, 142–158. 629
Lyons, R. F., Sullivan, M. J. L., Ritvo, P. G., & Coyne, J. C. (1995). Relationships in chronic 630
illness and disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 631
Martin, J. J. (2013). Peer relationships in youth disability sport. In S. Kaufmann & V. Meyer 632
(Eds.), Friendships: Cultural variations, developmental issues and impact on health (pp. 633
169-176). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. 634
Martin, J. J., & Whalen, L. (2012). Self-concept and physical activity in athletes with physical 635
disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 5, 197–200. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.03.006 636
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., & Burke, S. M. (2009). Team building interventions in sport: A 637
meta-analysis. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 5, 3–18. 638
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 30
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2012). Development of a cohesion 639
inventory for children’s sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 640
16, 68-79. doi: 10.1037/a0024691 641
NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 10) [Computer Software]. Burlington, MA: 642
QSR International Pty Ltd. 643
Nyland, J., Snouse, S. L., Anderson, M., Kelly, T., & Sterling, J. C. (2000). Soft tissue 644
injuries to USA Paralympians at the 1996 summer games. Archives of Physical Medicine 645
and Rehabilitation, 81, 368–373. doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90086-8 646
Padgett, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, 647
CA: Sage. 648
Paradis, K. F., Carron, A. V., & Martin, L. J. (2014). Athlete perceptions of intra-group 649
conflict in sport teams. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 10, 4–18. 650
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2011). Peer leadership in sport: Relationships among personal 651
characteristics, leader behaviors, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Sport 652
Psychology, 23, 49–64. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2010.520300 653
Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and 654
adolescent athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational 655
leadership theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 265–279. doi: 656
10.1080/10413200.2012.725703 657
Rathwell, S., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2014). Head coaches’ perceptions on the roles, 658
selection, and development of the assistant coach. International Sport Coaching Journal, 659
1, 5–16. doi: 10.1123/iscj.2013-0008 660
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 31
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand 661
Oaks, CA: Sage. 662
Shapiro, D. R., & Martin, J. J. (2014). The relationships among self perceptions and social well- 663
being in athletes with physical disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 7, 42–48. doi: 664
10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.06.002 665
Smith, J. (2009). Judging research quality: From certainty to contingency. Qualitative Research 666
in Sport and Exercise, 1, 91–100. doi: 10.1080/19398440902908928 667
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: 668
theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 669
Smith, J. A., & Osborne, M. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research 670
methods. In J.A. Smith (Ed.), (pp. 53–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 671
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and 672
relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 491–497. doi: 673
10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006 674
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: 675
From process to product. New York, NY: Routledge. 676
Starrs, P., Chohan, A., Fewtrell, D., Richards, J., & Selfe, J. (2012). Biomechanical differences 677
between experienced and inexperienced wheelchair users during sport. Prosthetics and 678
Orthotics International, 36, 324–331. doi: 10.1177/0309364612448807 679
Tawse, H., Bloom, G. A., Sabiston, C. M., & Reid, G. (2012). The role of coaches of wheelchair 680
rugby in the development of athletes with a spinal cord injury. Qualitative Research in 681
Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 206–225. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2012.685104 682
Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 32
Tracey, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative 683
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. 684
Vincer, D. J. E., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The relationship between athlete leadership 685
behaviors and cohesion in team sport. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 448–467. 686
Weinberg, R., & McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative analysis of sport and business 687
organizations: Factors perceived critical for organizational success. Journal of Applied 688
Sport Psychology, 14, 292–298. doi: 10.1080/10413200290103563 689
Wu, S. K., & Williams, T. (2001). Factors influencing sport participation among athletes with 690
spinal cord injury. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 177–182. 691
doi: 10.1097/00005768-200102000-00001 692
Yukelson, D. P. (2006). Communicating effectively. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport 693
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (5th ed., pp. 174-191). New York, 694
NY: McGraw-Hill. 695