Coach leadership behaviors, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction in relation to the performance of athletes in the 1999 Rajabhat Games

The purpose of this study was to analyze the contributions of coach leadership behaviors, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction to the performance of Thai athletes. It was hypothesized in this study that: (a) there were no significant differences between male and female athletes on the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) (Chelladurai, 1996), Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Widmeyer, Brawley, Carron, 1985), and Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ) (Riemer, 1998) subscales; (b) there were no significant differences among six types of Rajabhat sport teams on the scores of the LSS, GEQ, and ASQ subscales; (c) there were no significant differences among the eight regions of Rajabhat Institutes on the scores of the LSS, GEQ, and ASQ subscales; and (d) the sixteen subscales of the LSS, GEQ, and ASQ would be the statistically significant predictors of the performance of Rajabhat sport teams.;Subjects of the study were 74 sport teams from six popular sports in Thailand; soccer, basketball, volleyball, sepak takraw, badminton, and table tennis. The sport teams consisted of 617 male and female athlete from eight Rajabhat regions.;A one-way ANOVA was used to test the differences between male and female athletes in six selected sports, and eight regions of Rajabhat sport teams of the subscale scores of the LSS, GEQ, and ASQ. The results indicated that the scores among the eight regions of Rajabhat sport teams in the autocratic style of coach leadership behavior (F 7, 66, = 4.846, p < .01), individual attractions to group-task (F 7, 66 = 3.337, p < .01), individual attractions to group social (F 7,66 = 3.617, p < .01), and group integration-task (F 7, 66 = 3.924, p < .01) were significantly different.;Stepwise multiple regression used to determine the contribution of the sixteen subscale scores of the LSS, GEQ, and ASQ on the performance of Rajabhat sport teams indicated two significant predictors; coach training and instruction, and athlete satisfaction with ability utilization. Beta weights of coach training and instruction and athlete satisfaction with ability utilization were equal to .332 and .315 (t = 2.696, p < .01 and t = 2.511, p < .05). The final model accounted for 34.40% of the variance (F 2, 71 = 18.632, p < .05, R2 = .344).