Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
BMC SPORTS SCIENCE, MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, cilt.18, ss.1-34, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
Coaches influence athletes’ performance and psychosocial development, yet evidence comparing psychological well-being (PWB) and coach self-efficacy (CSE) between coaches working with athletes with disabilities and those coaching athletes without disabilities remains limited. This study aimed to compare PWB and CSE between these two coaching contexts, examine the association between CSE and PWB, and identify sociodemographic and professional predictors of both outcomes.
In this cross-sectional study, 312 coaches (mean age 35.79 ± 7.46 years; 50.0% female) were recruited through voluntary online participation. Of these, 49.4% coached athletes with disabilities and 50.6% coached athletes without disabilities. Data were collected using a structured sociodemographic form, the Psychological Well-Being scale, and the Coach Self-Efficacy scale. Pearson correlation analyses examined associations between psychological well-being and self-efficacy dimensions. Separate multiple linear regression models were constructed for each coaching context to identify independent predictors of psychological well-being and total coaching self-efficacy.
Total PWB scores did not differ significantly between coaches working with athletes with disabilities and those coaching athletes without disabilities (41.85 ± 10.07 vs. 43.26 ± 10.61; p = 0.229). In contrast, CSE was consistently higher among coaches of athletes with disabilities across all domains: performance (p = 0.032), psychological (p = 0.006), teaching (p = 0.011), character-building (p = 0.027), and management competence (p = 0.016). Total CSE scores were also higher in this group (84.32 ± 18.13 vs. 78.92 ± 18.21; p = 0.009). PWB was strongly and positively correlated with CSE in both groups (r values > 0.60). In regression analyses, income was the strongest independent predictor of PWB in both groups (p < 0.05). In the non-disability group, sex was additionally associated with PWB (p = 0.034). For total CSE, income and coaching level independently predicted higher scores in the non-disability group (p < 0.05), whereas relationship status was the only significant predictor in the disability group (p = 0.036).
Coaches working with athletes with disabilities report higher self-efficacy across multiple domains, although overall psychological well-being is comparable across coaching contexts. The strong association between self-efficacy and well-being highlights perceived professional competence as a key correlate of coaches’ mental health. Sociodemographic and professional factors, particularly income, certification level, and relationship status, were associated with these outcomes. Given the cross-sectional design and voluntary online recruitment, the findings should be interpreted with caution.