Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 1 2 Leadership...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.03.006


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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90086-8


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


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

Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 1 2 Leadership...

Documents

Transcript of Running Head: PARALYMPIC ATHLETE LEADERS 1 2 Leadership...