Table 4.
Multiple linear regression models predicting total coach self-efficacy score among coaches working with athletes without disabilities vs. athletes with disabilities
| Predictor | Coaches of athletes without disabilities (n = 157) | Coaches of athletes with disability (n = 145) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B (SE) | β | t | p | 95% CI for B | B (SE) | β | t | p | 95% CI for B | |
| Intercept | 65.125 (12.481) | — | 5.218 | < 0.001*** | 40.462 to 89.788 | 67.361 (13.244) | — | 5.086 | < 0.001*** | 41.173 to 93.550 |
| Age (years) | 0.167 (0.251) | 0.064 | 0.666 | 0.506 | −0.329 to 0.664 | 0.168 (0.233) | 0.075 | 0.722 | 0.471 | −0.293 to 0.629 |
| Sex | −5.306 (2.722) | −0.146 | −1.950 | 0.053 | −10.684 to 0.072 | −0.077 (2.789) | −0.002 | −0.028 | 0.978 | −5.593 to 5.439 |
| Education level | −1.561 (3.185) | −0.038 | −0.490 | 0.625 | −7.854 to 4.733 | 0.221 (3.719) | 0.005 | 0.059 | 0.953 | −7.132 to 7.575 |
| Relationship status | −3.353 (3.000) | −0.086 | −1.118 | 0.265 | −9.281 to 2.574 | −7.229 (3.408) | −0.169 | −2.121 | 0.036* | −13.968 to − 0.489 |
| Income level | 5.176 (2.398) | 0.190 | 2.158 | 0.032* | 0.438 to 9.914 | 4.324 (2.259) | 0.158 | 1.914 | 0.058 | −0.143 to 8.791 |
| Years of coaching | 0.424 (0.293) | 0.138 | 1.446 | 0.150 | −0.156 to 1.004 | 0.386 (0.290) | 0.144 | 1.328 | 0.186 | −0.188 to 0.960 |
| Coaching level (grade) | 3.477 (1.645) | 0.185 | 2.114 | 0.036* | 0.227 to 6.728 | 2.855 (1.631) | 0.151 | 1.750 | 0.082 | −0.371 to 6.081 |
Model fit (no disabilities): R = 0.462; R²=0.214; Adj. R²=0.177; F(7,149) = 5.786; p < 0.001; Durbin–Watson = 1.519; For coaches working with non-disabled athletes, variance inflation factor (VIF) values ranged between 1.07 and 1.72, indicating no evidence of multicollinearity. Model fit (disability): R = 0.417; R²=0.174; Adj. R²=0.132; F(7,137) = 4.126; p < 0.001; Durbin–Watson = 1.234; For coaches working with athletes with disabilities, VIF values ranged between 1.03 and 1.98, also suggesting that multicollinearity was not a concern
B unstandardized regression coefficient, SE Standard error, β standardized coefficient, CI Confidence interval, Adj. adjusted, CI Confidence interval, DW Durbin–Watson, SE Standard error. Categorical predictors were dummy-coded using the following reference categories: sex = female, relationship status = in a relationship, and income level = low income, and education = Secondary school. Coaching level (grade) was entered as an ordinal variable with categories 1–5 (higher values indicate higher coaching grade)
p values: p < 0.05 **; p < 0.001 ***