From Coach Knowledge to Burnout: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Psychological Capital and Coach-Athlete Relationship Quality in Elite Football

From Coach Knowledge to Burnout: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Psychological Capital and Coach-Athlete Relationship Quality in Elite Football | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Coach Knowledge to Burnout: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Psychological Capital and Coach-Athlete Relationship Quality in Elite Football Rancheng Tao, Ningyi Zhang, Ce Guo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Coach burnout is increasingly recognized as a critical issue in high-performance sport, yet existing research has focused primarily on situational stressors and coaching outcomes, with limited attention to the upstream cognitive resources that may protect coaches’ psychological wellbeing. The present study examined how different forms of coach knowledge are translated into burnout outcomes through psychological and relational mechanisms in elite football coaching contexts. Methods: A cross-sectional survey design was employed with a sample of 221 high-level football coaches holding Asian Football Confederation B-level licences or above. After data screening and removal of multivariate outliers, 215 cases were retained for analysis. Coach knowledge was operationalised as professional–interpersonal knowledge and intrapersonal knowledge. Psychological capital, coach–athlete relationship quality, and coach burnout were assessed using validated instruments. Covariance-based structural equation modelling was conducted using a two-step approach, comprising confirmatory factor analysis followed by structural model testing. Indirect effects were examined using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Both dimensions of coach knowledge were positively associated with psychological capital. Psychological capital, in turn, was positively related to coach–athlete relationship quality. The direct paths from coach knowledge to burnout were not significant. However, significant indirect effects emerged through a sequential mediation pathway in which coach knowledge predicted burnout via psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. The final structural model demonstrated acceptable fit indices, supporting the proposed cognitive–psychological–relational mechanism linking coach knowledge to burnout. Conclusions: Findings indicate that coach knowledge contributes to lower burnout risk indirectly by fostering psychological capital and enhancing the quality of coach–athlete relationships. These results highlight the importance of viewing coach knowledge not only as a performance-related resource but also as a foundation for coaches’ psychological resilience and relational functioning. Coach education and professional development programmes may benefit from integrating psychological and interpersonal components alongside technical knowledge to support coach wellbeing in high-performance sport. football coach coach knowledge psychological capital coach and athlete relationship coach burnout Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Background In high-performance sport, coaches operate at the nexus of scientific knowledge application, athlete development, and organisational performance. Effective coaching therefore requires not only professional expertise, but also the capacity to regulate emotions, sustain motivation, and navigate complex interpersonal and institutional pressures ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ). Under conditions of prolonged workload, public scrutiny, and continual performance evaluation, these demands place coaches at heightened risk of psychological strain and burnout ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ). Coach burnout has emerged as a critical concern within sport psychology and coaching science, with a growing body of research documenting its detrimental effects on coaches’ psychological wellbeing, decision-making quality, and long-term professional sustainability ( 5 ) ( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) ( 10 ) ( 11 ). Existing research on coach burnout has predominantly focused on contextual and situational antecedents, such as workload, perceived stress, organisational instability, coping styles, emotional labour, and social support, to explain burnout trajectories in sport settings ( 4 ) ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( 13 ) ( 14 ) ( 15 ) ( 16 ). While stress, emotional labour, and lack of social support have been identified as major predictors ( 12 ) ( 15 ) ( 17 ), there has been limited attention to internal psychological and cognitive factors that may protect against burnout. In particular, the psychological mechanisms through which coaching related knowledge may contribute to resilience against burnout remain insufficiently understood. Coach knowledge represents a central cognitive foundation that may influence how coaches make sense of performance pressures, regulate motivation, and engage with athletes over time ( 1 ) ( 3 ) ( 18 ). Recent research indicates that coaches who articulate clear visions, goals, values, and performance indicators are better equipped to manage uncertainty, foster team cohesion, and convert expertise into meaningful performance outcomes ( 19 ). From this perspective, coach knowledge has been consistently identified as a core component of coaching expertise, while its influence is realised through how knowledge is interpreted, enacted, and embedded within coaches’ psychological functioning and day-to-day interpersonal practice ( 20 ) ( 21 ). Psychological capital offers a theoretically grounded lens through which to examine how coaches mobilise psychological resources under pressure. In this study, psychological capital is assumed to facilitate more constructive coach–athlete relationships, which may in turn be associated with lower burnout risk. The present study aims to examine psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality as sequential mechanisms through which coach knowledge influences burnout among high-level football coaches. 1.1 Coach Knowledge as a Multidimensional Cognitive Resource Coach knowledge has been consistently identified as a core component of coaching expertise and effectiveness ( 1 ). Contemporary coaching frameworks conceptualise coach knowledge as a multidimensional cognitive resource encompassing professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains ( 1 ) ( 2 ). Professional knowledge refers to coaches’ declarative and procedural understanding of sport sciences, sport-specific content, and pedagogy required to plan, deliver, and evaluate training. Interpersonal knowledge reflects coaches’ capacity to communicate effectively and manage reciprocal interactions with athletes and other stakeholders within diverse social contexts. Intrapersonal knowledge concerns self-awareness, reflection, and introspection, enabling coaches to critically evaluate practice, learn from experience, and adapt to athletes’ individual and cultural needs ( 1 ). Over the past decade, this tripartite conceptualisation has dominated empirical research on coaching knowledge ( 3 ) ( 18 ) ( 22 ), and has informed the design of coach education and development programmes across a wide range of sport systems ( 23 ) ( 24 ). While current research has predominantly examined coach knowledge in relation to coaching effectiveness and performance outcomes, these knowledge domains collectively contribute to coaches’ psychological functioning ( 25 ). Empirical validation of the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire (CKQ) indicates that professional and interpersonal knowledge (PIK) operate as explicit, declarative forms of knowledge embedded in coaches’ everyday instructional and relational practices ( 18 ). As a result, these two knowledge domains are cognitively intertwined and psychometrically inseparable, forming a single professional–interpersonal factor. In contrast, intrapersonal knowledge (IK), encompassing reflective practice, emotional awareness, and coaching philosophy, represents a more implicit and introspective domain that is less directly observable in routine coaching behaviours and therefore emerges as a distinct second factor. Coaches with higher levels of PIK tend to report greater instructional clarity, decision confidence, and athlete-centred behaviours, whereas IK is more strongly associated with self-reflection, self-awareness, and adaptive learning over time ( 18 ). Accordingly, the present study modelled PIK and IK as two distinct latent variables rather than treating CKQ as a single global construct. This specification allows for a more fine-grained examination of how different forms of coach knowledge relate to burnout processes. Conceptually, PIK reflects externally enacted knowledge embedded in instructional, relational, and organisational practices, whereas IK captures internally oriented reflective and self-regulatory capacities. Analytically, separating these domains enables the identification of differentiated pathways through which coach knowledge may influence psychological capital, relational processes, and ultimately burnout. 1.2 Psychological Capital as a Psychological Resource in Coaching Psychological capital originates from positive organisational behaviour theory and is defined as a developable, state-like psychological resource comprising self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism ( 26 ) ( 27 ). Across occupational contexts, psychological capital has been consistently associated with higher wellbeing, engagement, and performance, as well as lower stress and burnout ( 28 ) ( 29 ). In sport organisations, Psychological capital has been linked to adaptive coping, emotional regulation, and sustained commitment among coaches and sport employees ( 30 ) ( 31 ). Importantly, knowledge-based resources enhance individuals’ sense of control, clarity, and goal coherence, which in turn support the development of psychological capital ( 32 ) ( 33 ). Psychological capital has also been shown to function as a mediating mechanism linking cognitive or skill-based resources to wellbeing outcomes ( 34 ) ( 35 ). In sport settings, coaches and sport employees with stronger psychological capital show superior emotional control, perseverance, and commitment ( 30 ). Furthermore, psychological capital has mediated relationships between coping strategies, perceived stress, and burnout, highlighting its role as a psychological bridge between capability and emotional outcomes ( 36 ). For example, psychological capital has been found to mitigate burnout by fostering better coping mechanisms and adaptive responses to stress ( 37 ) ( 38 ). 1.3 Coach–Athlete Relationship Quality as a Relational Context The coach–athlete relationship represents a fundamental interpersonal context in which coaching expertise and psychological resources are enacted ( 39 ) ( 2 ). According to Jowett’s model, relationship quality comprises closeness (affective bonds such as trust and respect), commitment (cognitive intention to maintain the relationship), and complementarity (cooperative and coordinated interaction patterns) ( 40 ) ( 41 ) ( 42 ) ( 43 ). Systematic reviews from coaches’ perspectives further indicate that relationship quality is a key determinant of occupational sustainability and vulnerability to burnout (McShan & Moore, 2023). Critically, relationship quality has been identified as a protective factor against burnout. Supportive, trusting, and cooperative relationships buffer emotional exhaustion and sport devaluation by fostering shared purpose, psychological safety, and interpersonal support ( 44 ) ( 45 ). 1.4 Coach Burnout as a Relationally Embedded Psychological Outcome Burnout in sport was initially conceptualised as a multidimensional syndrome reflecting prolonged psychological responses to chronic occupational stressors inherent in high-performance sport environments, comprising emotional and physical exhaustion, sport devaluation, and a reduced sense of accomplishment ( 4 ) ( 46 ) ( 47 ). Within coaching populations, burnout has been consistently associated with excessive workload, time pressure, role ambiguity, and insufficient recovery across competitive seasons ( 5 ) ( 11 ). In elite football contexts, burnout risk is amplified by the convergence of performance-driven evaluation, unstable employment conditions, and continuous interpersonal demands ( 13 ). Longitudinal evidence indicates that burnout symptoms among high-performance coaches fluctuate across the season but can accumulate when stressors persist without adequate psychological or social resources ( 8 ) ( 10 ). Contemporary burnout research increasingly conceptualises burnout as relationally embedded, rather than solely as an individual stress response ( 48 ). Gustafsson et al. ( 47 ) argue that burnout emerges from continuous transactions between individuals and their social environments, highlighting the role of interpersonal relationships in shaping emotional exhaustion and devaluation processes. For coaches, whose professional identity and daily work are inseparable from sustained interaction with athletes, the coach–athlete relationship constitutes a salient interpersonal context that may shape vulnerability to burnout. Empirical studies have linked higher relationship quality to lower burnout-related symptoms in sport settings ( 45 ). However, existing research has primarily examined coach knowledge in relation to coaching effectiveness and performance, with limited attention to its role in shaping coaches’ psychological wellbeing. Little is known about how different forms of coach knowledge contribute to positive psychological resources that may protect against burnout, or how such resources are enacted within coach–athlete relationships. Although psychological capital and relationship quality have each been linked to burnout, they are rarely integrated within explanatory models that account for upstream cognitive antecedents. As a result, current research provides limited insight into how cognitive, psychological, and relational processes jointly influence burnout in elite coaching contexts. 1.5 An Integrated Framework Linking Coach Knowledge, Psychological Capital, Relationship Quality, and Burnout Building on this literature, the present study advances an integrated mediation framework in which coach knowledge, operationalised as two latent constructs, PIK and IK, is sequentially linked to coach burnout through psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. Within this assumed framework, PIK and IK form foundational cognitive resources. Psychological capital is positioned as a psychological reservoir emerging from these knowledge structures, reflecting how coaches translate knowledge into confidence, goal-directed motivation, adaptive recovery, and positive future expectations. However, psychological resources alone may not directly protect against burnout unless they are enacted within coaches’ relational environments. Accordingly, coach–athlete relationship quality is conceptualised as the proximal relational mechanism through which psychological capital influences burnout outcomes. In elite football contexts, where coaching work is inseparable from sustained interpersonal engagement, burnout is understood as a downstream consequence of how cognitive and psychological resources are expressed through everyday relational functioning. Therefore, the hypotheses were proposed (Fig. 1 ). Hypotheses 1: Professional–interpersonal coach knowledge and intrapersonal coach knowledge are positively associated with psychological capital. Hypotheses 2: Psychological capital is positively associated with coach–athlete relationship quality and mediates the relationship between coach knowledge and coach–athlete relationship quality. Hypotheses 3: Psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality sequentially mediate the relationships between coach knowledge (professional–interpersonal and intrapersonal) and coach burnout. 2. Methods 2.1 Participants A total of 221 high-level football coaches participated in this study. Coaches were recruited through professional coaching networks and football organisations. Eligibility criteria required participants to: ( 1 ) hold an Asian Football Confederation B-level coaching licence or above; ( 2 ) be actively coaching an organised football team at the time of data collection; and ( 3 ) have direct responsibility for training design, training implementation, and athlete management within their current coaching role. The sample was predominantly male (87.33%, n = 193), with female coaches accounting for 12.67% (n = 28). Participants were primarily aged 31–40 years (43.44%) and 41–50 years (37.10%). Coaches were drawn from a range of competitive contexts, including universities (30.32%), high-level youth training institutions (19.46%), professional club first teams (15.84%), professional reserve teams (13.57%), high school teams (10.86%), provincial teams (7.69%), and national teams (2.26%). Most participants held advanced coaching qualifications, with A-level licences (52.94%) and B-level licences (36.65%) predominating; 10.41% held professional-level certifications. Nearly half of the sample (48.87%) reported more than six years of experience with their current team, indicating substantial coaching experience in performance-oriented football environments. 2.2 Procedure Data were collected using an anonymous online questionnaire administered via Wenjuanxing, a widely used online survey platform in China that is commonly employed in academic research and provides standardised procedures for participant anonymity and data security. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport. Potential participants were contacted through on-site visits and email invitations to assess their interest in the study. Coaches who expressed interest received a participant information sheet outlining the study purpose, procedures, and ethical considerations, along with an informed consent form. After providing informed consent, participants were invited to complete a multi-section online questionnaire. To minimise common method bias, participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and the questionnaire emphasised that there were no right or wrong answers ( 49 ). Participation was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. 2.3 Measures instruments All Questionnaires were translated into Mandarin Chinese using a collaborative and iterative translation approach, integrating back-translation procedures with conceptual review and adjudication, as recommended by Douglas and Craig ( 50 ). This approach goes beyond literal equivalence and places particular emphasis on conceptual and functional equivalence across languages and cultural contexts. Specifically, the original English questionnaires were first translated into Mandarin Chinese by the first author, who completed doctoral degree in an English-speaking country (United Kingdom) and possesses advanced academic proficiency in both languages. The Chinese versions were then independently reviewed and back-translated into English by the second author, who obtained a doctoral degree in a European country and is fluent in both English and Mandarin. Discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were discussed collaboratively by the two authors, with particular attention to preserving conceptual meaning, response scale interpretation, and contextual relevance within elite sport and coaching settings ( 50 ). 2.3.1 Coach knowledge Coach knowledge was assessed using the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire (CKQ) developed and validated by Quinaud et al. ( 18 ). The CKQ comprises 13 items, loading on two empirically supported dimensions: PIK (8 items) and IK (5 items), rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Previous validation studies have reported strong reliability for both dimensions, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.89 for PIK and 0.83 for IK ( 18 ). In the present sample, both CKQ dimensions demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of α = [0.90] for PIK and α = [0.88] for IK. 2.3.2 Psychological capital Psychological capital was measured using the 12-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12), which has been validated across occupational, sport, and exercise contexts ( 26 ) ( 27 ) ( 28 ) ( 30 ) ( 51 ). Use of the PCQ-12 was authorised by Mind Garden, Inc. under a research licence obtained by the corresponding author. The PCQ-12 comprises four dimensions: self-efficacy (3 items), hope (4 items), resilience (3 items), and optimism (2 items). Items were rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In the present sample, the overall psychological capital scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = [0.94]). At the dimension level, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were α = [0.91] for self-efficacy, α = [0.87] for hope, α = [0.86] for resilience, and α = [0.85] for optimism. 2.3.3 Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire Coach–athlete relationship quality was assessed using the Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) ( 40 ), adapted for the coach self-report perspective ( 52 ) ( 53 ). The CART-Q consists of 11 items measuring three relational dimensions: closeness (4 items), commitment (3 items), and complementarity (4 items). Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Consistent with established practice, scores from the three subscales were aggregated to form a composite index of overall coach–athlete relationship quality. Previous research has demonstrated the CART-Q to possess sound psychometric properties across cultural and sport contexts ( 52 ) ( 53 ) ( 54 ). In the present sample, the CART-Q demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.91). 2.3.4 Coach burnout Coach burnout was assessed using the Coach Burnout Questionnaire (CBQ) ( 55 ), adapted from the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire developed by Raedeke and Smith ( 4 ) and subsequently applied to coaching populations. The questionnaire consists of 15 items assessing three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced sense of accomplishment, with five items per dimension. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater burnout. Within the reduced sense of accomplishment subscale, two positively worded items (Items 1 and 4) were reverse coded prior to analysis so that higher scores consistently reflected higher levels of burnout across all dimensions. Consistent with previous research, the CBQ demonstrated good internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). 2.4 Data screening and preliminary analyses Prior to model testing, data were screened for missing values, distributional properties, and potential outliers following established recommendations for structural equation modelling (SEM) ( 56 ). Univariate normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis indices, with all values falling within acceptable thresholds for maximum likelihood estimation (|skewness| < 2; |kurtosis| < 7) ( 57 ). Multivariate outliers were examined using Mahalanobis distance, with reference to the χ² critical value at p < .001 ( 58 ). Based on this criterion, six cases exceeded the critical value and were removed from subsequent analyses to reduce the influence of extreme multivariate response patterns. The final analytical sample therefore comprised 215 coaches. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables, and bivariate Pearson correlations were computed to examine preliminary associations among coach knowledge, psychological capital dimensions, coach–athlete relationship quality, and burnout ( 59 ). 2.5 Main analysis The primary aim of the analyses was to examine the mechanisms linking coach knowledge to coach burnout, with particular emphasis on the mediating roles of psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. A structural model was tested in which two dimensions of coach knowledge, PIK and IK, were specified as exogenous variables predicting burnout indirectly through psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. Covariance-based SEM was conducted using AMOS 28.0, following the two-step procedure recommended by Kline ( 56 ). In the first step, CFA was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the measurement model. Construct reliability and convergent validity were assessed using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), with values of CR ≥ .70 and AVE ≥ .50 indicating acceptable measurement quality ( 60 ). Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including the chi-square statistic (χ²), normed chi-square (χ²/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals. In line with established guidelines, CFI and TLI values ≥ .90 and RMSEA ≤ .08 were taken to indicate acceptable model fit ( 56 ). In the second step, the structural model was estimated to test the hypothesised relationships among coach knowledge, psychological capital, coach–athlete relationship quality, and burnout. Standardised path coefficients were examined, with effect sizes interpreted according to recommended benchmarks for SEM ( 56 ). 2.6 Mediation analysis and bootstrapping Mediation effects were tested using bias-corrected bootstrap procedures ( 61 ). Specifically, 5,000 bootstrap resamples were used to estimate indirect effects and corresponding 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. An indirect effect was considered statistically significant if the confidence interval did not include zero (α = 0.05). Psychological capital was modelled as a latent mediator linking the two coach knowledge dimensions to coach–athlete relationship quality, which in turn served as a proximal mediator predicting burnout. This sequential mediation framework allowed examination of how distinct domains of coach knowledge are translated into burnout outcomes through psychological and relational mechanisms. 3. Results 3.1 Preliminary analyses Following data screening, a total of 215 cases were retained for analysis. No missing values were identified in the final dataset. Skewness values ranged from − 0.97 to 0.73 and kurtosis values ranged from − 0.40 to 0.62 across all observed variables, indicating acceptable univariate normality for maximum likelihood estimation ( 56 ). 3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1 . Mean scores indicated relatively high levels of coach knowledge, psychological capital, and coach–athlete relationship quality, alongside comparatively lower levels of burnout. Specifically, coaches reported higher scores for PIK (M = 4.27, SD = 0.51) and IK (M = 4.20, SD = 0.54), as well as for psychological capital (M = 5.20, SD = 0.63) and coach–athlete relationship quality (M = 6.30, SD = 0.67). Table 1 Descriptive statistics and reliability of study variables (N = 215) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. CKQ_PIK – 2. CKQ_IK .796** – 3. PsyCap .745** .767** – 4. CART .559** .557** .602** – 5. Burnout − .136* − .107 − .196** − .175* – M 4.27 4.20 5.20 6.30 2.49 SD 0.51 0.54 0.63 0.67 0.68 Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. Correlation analyses showed that both dimensions of coach knowledge were positively associated with psychological capital (r = 0.745–0.767, p < 0.01) and coach–athlete relationship quality (r = 0.557–0.559, p < 0.01). Psychological capital was also positively related to coach–athlete relationship quality (r = 0.602, p < 0.01). Burnout was negatively associated with PIK (r = − 0.136, p < 0.05), psychological capital (r = − 0.196, p < 0.01), and coach–athlete relationship quality (r = − 0.175, p < 0.05). 3.3 Measurement and structural model CFA was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the measurement model. The measurement model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, χ²(218) = 369.36, χ²/df = 1.648, CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.055 (90% CI [.045, .065]) (Table 2 ). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and exceeded 0.70. In order to assess convergent validity, AVE was computed for each latent construct. The AVE values indicate satisfactory convergent validity for all constructs (PIK = 0.54; IK = 0.60; Psychological Capital = 0.70; Coach–Athlete Relationship Quality = 0.78; and Coach Burnout = 0.67). Table 2 Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement and structural models. Model χ² df χ²/df RMSEA (90% CI) CFI TLI Measurement model 359.36 218 1.648 .055 (.045 –.065) .958 .951 Structural Model 397.61 220 1.807 .061(.052 –.071) .947 .940 Note. χ² = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; PCLOSE = p value for test of close fit (RMSEA ≤ .05); CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; 3.4 Structural paths and indirect effects Following confirmation of an acceptable measurement model, the structural model was tested and demonstrated adequate fit to the data (Table 3 ). As hypothesised, both PIK and IK were positively associated with psychological capital (β = 0.29 and β = 0.60, R²=0.75). Psychological capital, in turn, positively predicted coach–athlete relationship quality (β = 0.46, R²=0.45). Relationship quality was negatively associated with burnout (β=−0.21), whereas the direct effects of coach knowledge dimensions and psychological capital on burnout were non-significant. Overall, the model explained 8.4% of the variance in burnout (R²=0.084), indicating that coach knowledge influenced burnout primarily through indirect pathways via psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality (Fig. 2 )。 Table 3 Structural Path Coefficients of the SEM Model Path B SE β CR p CKQ_PIK → Psychological Capital 0.350 0.150 0.289 2.33 .020 CKQ_IK → Psychological Capital 0.673 0.148 0.602 4.56 *** CKQ_PIK → Coach–Athlete Relationship 0.263 0.234 0.177 1.13 .260 CKQ_IK → Coach–Athlete Relationship 0.097 0.257 0.071 0.38 .706 Psychological Capital → Coach–Athlete Relationship 0.560 0.179 0.456 3.12 .002 Psychological Capital → Burnout −0.528 0.321 −0.288 −1.64 .100 Coach–Athlete Relationship → Burnout −0.310 0.145 −0.208 −2.14 .032 CKQ_PIK → Burnout −0.111 0.405 −0.050 −0.27 .784 CKQ_IK→ Burnout 0.612 0.448 0.298 1.37 .172 Note. B = unstandardized estimate; β = standardized coefficient; SE = standard error; CR = critical ratio; *** p<.001. CKQ_PIK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Professional and Interpersonal Knowledge; CKQ_IK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Intrapersonal knowledge. Indirect effects were examined using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Table 4 ). Results indicated significant sequential indirect effects from both coach knowledge dimensions to burnout through psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. Specifically, PIK showed a significant indirect effect on burnout via psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality (− 0.117, 95% CI [− 0.401, − 0.013], p = 0.022), and IK showed a similar sequential indirect effect (− 0.061, 95% CI [− 0.291, − 0.002], p = 0.034). In contrast, indirect pathways involving psychological capital or coach–athlete relationship quality alone were non-significant, as were all direct and total effects. These findings suggest that the influence of coach knowledge on burnout operates exclusively through a sequential transformation from psychological capital to relational functioning, rather than through isolated psychological or relational mechanisms. Table 4 Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effects Path Indirect effect 95% BC CI Lower 95% BC CI Upper p CKQ_PIK → Burnout −0.111 −0.838 0.670 0.732 CKQ_IK → Burnout 0.612 −0.280 1.449 0.153 CKQ_PIK → PsyCap → CART 0.196 0.007 0.572 0.040 CKQ_IK → PsyCap → CART 0.377 0.062 0.865 0.021 CKQ_PIK → CART → Burnout −0.082 −0.376 0.082 0.257 CKQ_PIK→ PsyCap → Burnout −0.185 −0.596 0.016 0.074 CKQ_IK → CART → Burnout −0.030 −0.288 0.150 0.646 CKQ_IK → PsyCap → Burnout −0.355 −1.056 0.033 0.072 CKQ_PIK → PsyCap → CART → Burnout −0.117 −0.401 −0.013 0.022 CKQ_IK → PsyCap → CART → Burnout −0.061 −0.291 −0.002 0.034 Notes. Bootstrap = 5,000 samples; Significant indirect effects are those with confidence intervals not crossing zero. CKQ_PIK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Professional and Interpersonal Knowledge; CKQ_IK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Intrapersonal knowledge; PsyCap=psychological capital; CART= coach and athlete relationship. Although total effects were non-significant, the presence of significant sequential indirect effects supports a process-oriented account, suggesting that coach knowledge influences burnout only when cognitive resources are transformed into psychological capital and subsequently enacted within the coach–athlete relationship. 4. Discussion 4.1 Psychological Capital as a Knowledge-Mobilisation Mechanism in Coaching The findings support Hypothesis 1, indicating that both PIK and IK are positively associated with psychological capital. Within the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire, coach knowledge is conceptualised as a multidimensional and integrated cognitive resource encompassing professional–interpersonal and intrapersonal domains (1) (18). PIK reflects coaches’ capacity to design and structure training processes, manage training environments, implement pedagogical interventions (e.g., instruction, feedback, task regulation), evaluate athletes’ technical, physical, and psychological characteristics, and guide long-term athlete development within complex social systems (18) (23). Consistent with this conceptualisation, the present findings indicate that PIK is positively associated with coaches’ overall psychological capital. In elite football environments characterised by uncertainty, performance volatility, and sustained evaluative pressure, such knowledge and experience based competencies may foster psychological capital as a practice-embedded and experience-grounded resource rather than a dispositional trait detached from professional practice (9) (26). Coaches operating at higher levels of PIK tend to exhibit elevated self-efficacy in task execution, sustained goal-directed motivation, and more positive expectations regarding future performance trajectories, reflecting key psychological resources required for functioning under sustained performance pressure (9) (28). IK, involving reflective practice, self-awareness, emotional regulation, and critical appraisal of one’s coaching philosophy, also emerged as a significant predictor of psychological capital. Within psychological capital theory, such processes are foundational to the development of self-regulatory capacities that enable persistence, recovery from adversity, and constructive engagement with challenges (27) (62). In high-performance football contexts, where coaches face public scrutiny, unstable employment conditions, and ongoing performance demands, IK may thus serve as a critical cognitive foundation for the accumulation of psychological capital across time (47). Taken together, the psychological capital among elite football coaches is situated within the epistemic and experiential foundations of coaching practice, highlighting that coaches’ psychological resources are significantly shaped by what they know, how they reflect, and how they engage with the elite football environments. 4.2 Psychological Capital and the Relational Enactment of Coaching Resources Hypothesis 2 proposed that psychological capital would be positively associated with coach–athlete relationship quality. Consistent with this hypothesis, the findings indicate that higher levels of psychological capital are associated with stronger perceived relationship quality between coaches and athletes. From a relational perspective, the coach–athlete relationship is grounded in affective closeness, cognitive commitment, and behavioural complementarity (40) (41). Coaches with higher psychological capital may be better equipped to foster these relational qualities by sustaining constructive emotional tone, maintaining shared goals, and coordinating behaviour effectively under pressure (63). Empirical research lends support to this interpretation. Studies from both athlete and coach perspectives have shown that positive psychological resources are associated with more supportive communication, autonomy-supportive behaviours, and relationship maintenance strategies, all of which contribute to higher-quality coach–athlete relationships (64) (54) (65). Moreover, organisational and sport psychology research indicates that psychological capital is positively related to interpersonal trust, social cohesion, and constructive relational climates, particularly in high-pressure performance environments (26) (28) (66). These findings indicate that coach knowledge is not directly associated with coach–athlete relationship quality; instead, its association with relationship quality is statistically evident through psychological capital. Specifically, higher levels of psychological capital were positively related to stronger coach–athlete relationships, and psychological capital significantly mediated the associations between both dimensions of coach knowledge and relationship quality. Within this framework, psychological capital functions as a key cognitive–motivational conduit through which coaches’ professional–interpersonal and IK is internalised, interpreted, and expressed in everyday relational interactions. While coach knowledge provides the structural and cognitive foundations for coaching practice, psychological capital, particularly its future-oriented and motivational components, appears to function as a proximal psychological mechanism through which such knowledge is mobilised. Through this mechanism, coaches’ knowledge is more likely to be translated into relationally relevant behaviours within interpersonal contexts (9). This interpretation is consistent with research indicating that interpersonal relationship quality in coaching is more strongly determined by coaches’ leadership, affective tone, and communicative behaviours than by technical expertise or task competence alone (64) (67). From this perspective, psychological capital may serve to transform knowledge from a latent cognitive asset into a relationally visible resource, enabling coaches to sustain constructive interaction patterns, convey positive expectations, and maintain relational alignment with athletes over time (62) (65). 4.3 Serial mediation pathways linking coach knowledge and burnout Hypothesis 3 proposed that the association between coach knowledge and burnout would be explained through a serial mediation process involving psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality. The findings support for this hypothesis. The present findings indicate that coach knowledge did not exert a direct effect on burnout. This result is theoretically meaningful, as knowledge, even when it underpins planning, decision-making, and reflective practice, does not automatically insulate coaches from chronic psychological strain. Rather, its protective potential depends on whether knowledge is cognitively and emotionally mobilised through goal-directed thinking, positive expectancy, and adaptive sense-making processes (9). Therefore, coach knowledge does not exert a protective effect against burnout through isolated psychological or relational mechanisms. Similar conclusions have been reported in previous research, indicating that neither internal coping resources nor relational functioning alone is sufficient to offset sustained occupational stress in elite sport environments (47) (68). Although the overall proportion of variance in burnout explained by the model was modest (R² = 0.084), this magnitude is theoretically consistent with prior burnout research in elite sport contexts. Coach burnout is widely recognised as a multifactorial outcome shaped by a broad constellation of organisational, occupational, and personal stressors, including workload, job insecurity, organisational climate, time pressure, and recovery opportunities (4) (13). As such, no single cognitive or psychological pathway would be expected to account for a large proportion of variance in burnout when examined in isolation. From a psychological capital perspective, although a high-level psychological capital supports self-regulation, persistence, and adaptive coping at the individual level (28), its influence on burnout may be limited when these resources are not enacted within the relational context of coaching work. Applied research in education similarly suggests that psychological capital can reduce burnout risk by supporting proactive coping (69), but also implies a boundary condition: personal psychological resources may not translate into improved wellbeing when they remain largely intrapersonal. Likewise, coach–athlete relationship quality is shaped primarily through sustained interaction patterns, communication behaviours, and affective exchange, rather than by cognitive expertise alone (64), helping to explain the absence of a relationship-only mediation effect. In contrast, significant indirect effects emerged only when psychological capital and coach–athlete relationship quality were modelled sequentially. Within this framework, psychological capital functions as a necessary intermediate layer that activates and channels coaches’ knowledge into relationally meaningful engagement, while coach–athlete relationship quality represents the proximal interpersonal context in which these psychologically mobilised resources become consequential for burnout outcomes. As Jowett (41) emphasises, high-quality relationships, effective communication, and appropriate leadership form the core foundations of effective coaching; accordingly, psychological capital may play a “transformational” role in enabling coaches to sustain constructive interaction patterns, convey positive yet realistic expectations, and maintain goal alignment with athletes over time (62) (65). This interpretation aligns with contemporary views that burnout is embedded in ongoing social exchanges (70) (47), and with evidence that high-quality coach–athlete relationships are reliably associated with lower burnout indicators (71) (72) (73). More broadly, personal resources exert their protective effects most strongly when embedded within supportive social relationships (74) (63). The present findings therefore suggest that coach knowledge represents one contributory resource within a much wider burnout ecology, exerting its influence only when psychologically mobilised and relationally enacted. In applied terms, this indicates that enhancing coach knowledge alone is unlikely to substantially reduce burnout risk unless it is embedded within broader organisational, relational, and recovery-supportive systems. 4.4 Differential roles of PIK and IK in burnout processes The present findings also reveal functional differences between PIK and IK within this process, suggesting that the both domains of knowledge contribute to burnout prevention through complementary but non-identical mechanisms. First, IK demonstrated a stronger association with psychological capital than PIK. IK encompasses reflective practice, awareness of emotional responses, and the capacity to critically evaluate one’s coaching philosophy over time (18). These capacities closely align with the conceptual foundations of psychological capital, such as hope and optimism, which emphasise internal meaning-making, emotional regulation, and future-oriented self-appraisal which support relational sensitivity and sustained interpersonal engagement under evaluative pressure (26) (62) (75). Second, although IK showed a stronger association with psychological capital and a larger indirect effect on coach–athlete relationship quality via psychological capital, the serial indirect effect on burnout was stronger for PIK. IK primarily supports the internal mobilisation of psychological resources that enhance relational sensitivity and alignment, whereas PIK appears more consequential at the downstream stage where relational experiences are converted into sustained reductions in burnout. PIK reflects coaches’ capacity to integrate sport-specific expertise with pedagogical, organisational, and leadership competencies, enabling them to structure training systems, regulate interpersonal dynamics, take situational judgement, and adapt coaching behaviours within complex sport and social environments (1) (18) (67). These applied competencies are structurally embedded in the day-to-day regulation of workload, interpersonal demands, and role expectations, thereby shaping the cumulative conditions under which emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced personal accomplishment emerge in coaching. As such, professional–interpersonal knowledge may reduce the cumulative relational “cost” of coaching by structuring interactions in more efficient, predictable, and less emotionally taxing ways (67) (76) (77) (78). When psychological capital enhances relationship quality, professional–interpersonal knowledge appears to enable these relationships to function as effective protective mechanisms against burnout. Rather than merely strengthening relational closeness, it facilitates the enactment of high-quality relationships through coordinated behaviour, clear communication, and reduced interactional friction, thereby amplifying the buffering effect of relationships on burnout symptoms. 5. Conclusion This study advances understanding of coach burnout by integrating cognitive, psychological, and relational perspectives within a single explanatory framework. Drawing on data from high-level football coaches, the findings demonstrate that coach knowledge, operationalised as professional–interpersonal and intrapersonal domains, does not exert a direct protective effect against burnout. Instead, its influence operates through a sequential process in which knowledge contributes to the development of psychological capital, which is subsequently enacted within the coach–athlete relationship. Neither psychological capital nor coach–athlete relationship quality alone was sufficient to mediate the association between coach knowledge and burnout. Significant indirect effects emerged only when psychological capital and relationship quality functioned together, highlighting the necessity of considering both internal psychological mobilisation and interpersonal enactment. This pattern also suggests that intrapersonal knowledge primarily supports the internal mobilisation of psychological capital, whereas professional–interpersonal knowledge may be particularly consequential at the downstream stage where relational experiences are translated into sustained patterns of emotional demand and occupational burnout. These findings have important theoretical implications by indicating a process-oriented account of how knowledge, psychological resources, and relationships jointly alleviate coach burnout. Practically, the results suggest that burnout prevention initiatives in elite football should move beyond technical coach education or individual coping interventions, and instead foster psychological capital development alongside relational competencies that support constructive, trusting, and goal-aligned coach–athlete interactions. 6. Limitations and Future Research Directions Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference regarding the proposed sequential mechanisms. Although the model is theoretically grounded, longitudinal or intensive longitudinal designs are needed to examine how coach knowledge is transformed into psychological capital and relational processes over time. Second, the explained variance in burnout was modest, reflecting the multifactorial nature of coach burnout. Burnout is shaped by a wide range of organisational and contextual factors (e.g., workload, job insecurity, organisational climate) that were not included in the present model. Finally, the sample was limited to high-level football coaches within a specific cultural context, which may constrain generalisability. Future research should extend this work by (a) testing the proposed mechanisms longitudinally, (b) embedding cognitive–psychological mechanisms within broader multilevel frameworks to capture both individual and structural influences, and (c) exploring how distinct knowledge domains interact with specific burnout dimensions. Such work would advance a process-oriented understanding of how coach knowledge contributes to wellbeing through psychological and relational pathways. Abbreviations CKQ Coach Knowledge Questionnaire PIK Professional and Interpersonal Knowledge IK Intrapersonal Knowledge PCQ-12 Psychological Capital Questionnaire CART-Q Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire CBQ Coach Burnout Questionnaire SEM Structural Equation Modelling CR Composite reliability AVE Average variance extracted χ² the chi-square statistic χ²/df Normed chi-square CFI Comparative fit index TLI Tucker–Lewis index RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport prior to data collection. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national regulations. Participation was entirely voluntary. Before completing the survey, participants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose of the study, the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Informed consent was obtained electronically, with participants indicating their agreement by selecting a consent option on the first page of the online questionnaire. Consent for publication Not Applicable Competing Interests The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Funding The study was supported by Shanghai University of Sport (2025STD020). Author Contribution R.T. and C.G. were responsible for the study conception and overall research design. N.Z. carried out data collection and organisation in collaboration with C.G. R.T., and C.G. conducted the statistical analyses and contributed to the interpretation of the results. R.T. and N.Z prepared the first draft of the manuscript. C.G. provided critical revisions and substantive intellectual input throughout the manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements Not Applicable Data Availability Data will be made available on request. References Côté J, Gilbert W. An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J sports Sci coaching. 2009;4(3):307–23. Jowett S. Coaching effectiveness: The coach–athlete relationship at its heart. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:154–8. Lyle J, Cushion C. Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice. Routledge; 2016. Raedeke TD, Smith AL. Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. J sport Exerc Psychol. 2001;23(4):281–306. Goodger K, Gorely T, Lavallee D, Harwood C. Burnout in sport: A systematic review. sport Psychol. 2007;21(2):127–51. McNeill K, Durand-Bush N, Lemyre P-N. Understanding coach burnout and underlying emotions: A narrative approach. Emotions in sport coaching. Routledge; 2018. pp. 51–68. Raedeke TD, Kenttä G. Coach burnout. Routledge handbook of sports coaching. Routledge; 2013. pp. 424–35. Altfeld S, Mallett CJ, Kellmann M. Coaches’ burnout, stress, and recovery over a season: A longitudinal study. Int Sport Coaching J. 2015;2(2):137–51. Olusoga P, Bentzen M, Kentta G. Coach burnout: A scoping review. Int Sport Coaching J. 2019;6(1):42–62. Ackeret N, Röthlin P, Allemand M, Krieger T, Berger T, Znoj H, et al. Six-month stability of individual differences in sports coaches’ burnout, self-compassion and social support. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2022;61:102207. Malinauskas R, Malinauskiene V, editors. Characteristics of stress and burnout among Lithuanian university coaches: a pre-pandemic coronavirus and post-pandemic period comparison. Healthcare: MDPI; 2023. Fletcher D, Scott M. Psychological stress in sports coaches: A review of concepts, research, and practice. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(2):127–37. Bentzen M, Lemyre N, Kenttä G. A comparison of high-performance football coaches experiencing high-versus low-burnout symptoms across a season of play: Quality of motivation and recovery matters. Int Sport Coaching J. 2017;4(2):133–46. Larner RJ, Wagstaff C, Thelwell R, Corbett J. A multistudy examination of organizational stressors, emotional labor, burnout, and turnover in sport organizations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(12):2103–15. González-García H, Martinent G, Trinidad Morales A. Perceived coach leadership profiles and relationship with burnout, coping, and emotions. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1785. Lee YH, Chelladurai P. Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. Eur Sport Manage Q. 2018;18(4):393–412. Kang S, Lee S. A systematic review of psychological difficulties among elite sports coaches. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1666035. Quinaud RT, Backes AF, Nascimento Junior JRAd, Carvalho HM, Milistetd M. Development and validation of the coach knowledge questionnaire: measuring coaches’ professional, interpersonal and intrapersonal knowledge. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2022;20(1):302–18. López de Subijana C, Pons J, Mallett CJ. How is coaches’ social identity leadership related to mental health in elite athletes? The mediating role of satisfaction with performance. J Sports Sci. 2024;42(23):2183–90. Davis L, Jowett S. Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: Implications for athlete’s well-being. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(15):1454–64. Berntsen H, Kristiansen E. Successful coach learning: Digital workbook informed by pedagogical principles. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2019;14(3):310–23. Roberts AH, Greenwood DA, Stanley M, Humberstone C, Iredale F, Raynor A. Coach knowledge in talent identification: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Sci Med sport. 2019;22(10):1163–72. Stodter A, Cushion CJ. Evidencing the impact of coaches’ learning: Changes in coaching knowledge and practice over time. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(18):2086–93. Stoszkowski J, Collins D. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(9):794–802. Gilbert W, Côté J. Defining coaching effectiveness: a focus on coaches' knowledge. Routledge handbook of sports coaching. Routledge; 2013. pp. 147–59. Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol. 2007;60(3):541–72. Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM. Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Rev organizational Psychol organizational Behav. 2017;4(1):339–66. Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Luthans F. Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(2):282–94. Lupșa D, Vîrgă D. Psychological capital, health, and performance: the mediating role of burnout. Psihologia Resurselor Umane. 2020;18(1):7–22. Kim M, Perrewé PL, Kim YK, Kim ACH. Psychological capital in sport organizations: Hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism among employees in sport (HEROES). Eur Sport Manage Q. 2017;17(5):659–80. Kim M, Kim ACH, Newman JI, Ferris GR, Perrewé PL. The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: The role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations. Sport Manage Rev. 2019;22(1):108–25. Burhanuddin NAN, Ahmad NA, Said RR, Asimiran S. A systematic review of the psychological capital (PsyCap) research development: Implementation and gaps. Int J Acad Res Progressive Educ Dev. 2019;8(3):133–50. Goswami AK, Agrawal RK. It’sa knowledge centric world! Does ethical leadership promote knowledge sharing and knowledge creation? Psychological capital as mediator and shared goals as moderator. J Knowl Manage. 2023;27(3):584–612. Ayala Calvo JC, Manzano García G. The influence of psychological capital on graduates’ perception of employability: the mediating role of employability skills. High Educ Res Dev. 2021;40(2):293–308. Carmona–Halty M, Salanova M, Llorens S, Schaufeli WB. How psychological capital mediates between study–related positive emotions and academic performance. J Happiness Stud. 2019;20(2):605–17. Yu X, Xing S, Yang Y. The relationship between psychological capital and athlete burnout: the mediating relationship of coping strategies and the moderating relationship of perceived stress. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):64. Rehman Su, Qingren C, Latif Y, Iqbal P. Impact of psychological capital on occupational burnout and performance of faculty members. Int J Educational Manage. 2017;31(4):455–69. Gong Z, Chen Y, Wang Y. The influence of emotional intelligence on job burnout and job performance: Mediating effect of psychological capital. Front Psychol. 2019;10:486722. Jowett S, Poczwardowski A. Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. 2007. Jowett S, Ntoumanis N. The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(4):245–57. Jowett S. The coach-athlete relationship within a cross-boundary team of experts: a conceptual analysis. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2024:1–16. Davis L, Jowett S, Tafvelin S. Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2156. Şenel E, Jowett S, Adiloğulları İ, Kerr-Cumbo R. Investigating the impact of coach behaviours and coach-athlete relationships on psychological safety. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2025;23(7):1051–65. Isoard-Gautheur S, Trouilloud D, Gustafsson H, Guillet-Descas E. Associations between the perceived quality of the coach–athlete relationship and athlete burnout: An examination of the mediating role of achievement goals. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016;22:210–7. Westfall S, Martin EM, Gould D. The association between the coach-athlete relationship and burnout among high school coaches. J Sport Behav. 2018. Gustafsson H, Kenttä G, Hassmén P. Athlete burnout: An integrated model and future research directions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011;4(1):3–24. Gustafsson H, DeFreese J, Madigan DJ. Athlete burnout: Review and recommendations. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:109–13. Leiter MP. Burnout as a developmental process: Consideration of models. Professional burnout: CRC; 2018. pp. 237–50. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879. Douglas SP, Craig CS. Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. J Int Mark. 2007;15(1):30–43. Wernsing T. Psychological capital: A test of measurement invariance across 12 national cultures. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2014;21(2):179–90. Balduck AL, Jowett S. Psychometric properties of the Belgian coach version of the coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(5):779–86. Vieira LF, Nascimento Junior JRAd, Pujals C, Jowett S, Codonhato R, Vissoci JRN. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q)-Athlete Version. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano. 2015;17:635 – 49. Yang SX, Jowett S. Conceptual and measurement issues of the complementarity dimension of the coach–athlete relationship across cultures. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(6):830–41. Malinauskas R, Malinauskiene V, Dumciene A. Burnout and perceived stress among university coaches in Lithuania. J Occup Health. 2010;52(5):302–7. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford; 2023. Ryu E. Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(4):1066–74. Xiang S, Nie F, Zhang C. Learning a Mahalanobis distance metric for data clustering and classification. Pattern Recogn. 2008;41(12):3600–12. Kaur P, Stoltzfus J, Yellapu V. Descriptive statistics. Int J Acad Med. 2018;4(1):60–3. Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manage. 2024;41(2):745–83. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879–91. Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological capital and beyond: Oxford University Press; 2015. Carmona-Halty M, Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Good relationships, good performance: the mediating role of psychological capital–a three-wave study among students. Front Psychol. 2019;10:306. Rhind DJ, Jowett S. Development of the coach-athlete relationship maintenance questionnaire (CARM-Q). Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2012;7(1):121–37. Camiré M, Rathwell S, Turgeon³ S, Kendellen K. Coach–athlete relationships, basic psychological needs satisfaction and thwarting, and the teaching of life skills in Canadian high school sport. Int J sports Sci coaching. 2019;14(5):591–606. Youssef-Morgan CM, Luthans F. Psychological capital and well-being. Stress health: J Int Soc Invest Stress. 2015;31(3). Cushion C, Ford PR, Williams AM. Coach behaviours and practice structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(15):1631–41. Thelwell RC, Wagstaff CR, Chapman MT, Kenttä G. Examining coaches’ perceptions of how their stress influences the coach–athlete relationship. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(19):1928–39. Xue D, Sun B, Li W, Zhou H, Ding F, Xiao W. The symptom network structure of teachers’ burnout and its connection to psychological capital. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2023:3503–18. Schaufeli WB. The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. Revue Int de psychologie sociale. 2006;19(1):75–119. Paradis K, Carron AV, Martin LJ. Athlete perceptions of intragroup conflict in sport teams. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev. 2014;10(3):4–18. Pacewicz CE, Mellano KT, Smith AL. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between social constructs and athlete burnout. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;43:155–64. Şenel E, Küttel A, Adiloğulları İ, Jowett S. Psychological predictors of mental well-being in Judo athletes: Exploring the impacts of the coach-athlete relationship, social support, and psychological safety. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2025;79:102850. Hobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Rev organizational Psychol organizational Behav. 2018;5(1):103–28. Newman A, Ucbasaran D, Zhu F, Hirst G. Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. J organizational Behav. 2014;35(S1):S120–38. Hardy J, Eys MA, Carron AV. Exploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sports teams. Small group Res. 2005;36(2):166–87. Horn TS. Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. 2008. Ferrar P, Hosea L, Henson M, Dubina N, Krueger G, Staff J, et al. Building high performing coach-athlete relationships: The USOC’s national team coach leadership education program (NTCLEP). Int Sport Coaching J. 2018;5(1):60–70. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files PCQpermissionletter.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers invited by journal 24 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 23 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 02 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8701114","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":584765353,"identity":"83cde90b-ae40-47f5-b254-07fe67121751","order_by":0,"name":"Rancheng Tao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai University of Sport","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rancheng","middleName":"","lastName":"Tao","suffix":""},{"id":584765358,"identity":"4d7495f8-0b0b-4fc7-9878-fda344d608ca","order_by":1,"name":"Ningyi Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai University of Sport","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ningyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":584765359,"identity":"719c3c2a-1dd3-4f01-8aad-849b6b7b7564","order_by":2,"name":"Ce Guo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai University of Sport","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ce","middleName":"","lastName":"Guo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-26 14:09:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101833813,"identity":"b77005cb-817c-4134-9a3e-76a03a2e0b98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 07:06:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86747,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe path analysis of the hypothesised model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8701114/v1/80a8694dc370bd72251f5f68.png"},{"id":101833815,"identity":"cd5418e5-1350-43f4-9e89-d6add5aa56b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 07:06:23","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":98639,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural equation model illustrating the relationships among coach knowledge, psychological capital, coach–athlete relationship quality, and coaching burnout.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8701114/v1/9b2b6fec928811a8ae229420.png"},{"id":101881582,"identity":"0790ab9f-eda3-48d7-9d03-44b83297a342","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 15:13:22","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1427976,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8701114/v1/5c97d8fe-806a-477f-ba8a-d844d7b1c20e.pdf"},{"id":101833814,"identity":"c93d68f6-b7dc-4db0-a889-42d5b70c15d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-04 07:06:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":351968,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"PCQpermissionletter.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8701114/v1/93ee38efd738e7f4cc2a1b8d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Coach Knowledge to Burnout: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Psychological Capital and Coach-Athlete Relationship Quality in Elite Football","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn high-performance sport, coaches operate at the nexus of scientific knowledge application, athlete development, and organisational performance. Effective coaching therefore requires not only professional expertise, but also the capacity to regulate emotions, sustain motivation, and navigate complex interpersonal and institutional pressures (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Under conditions of prolonged workload, public scrutiny, and continual performance evaluation, these demands place coaches at heightened risk of psychological strain and burnout (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach burnout has emerged as a critical concern within sport psychology and coaching science, with a growing body of research documenting its detrimental effects on coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological wellbeing, decision-making quality, and long-term professional sustainability (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). Existing research on coach burnout has predominantly focused on contextual and situational antecedents, such as workload, perceived stress, organisational instability, coping styles, emotional labour, and social support, to explain burnout trajectories in sport settings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). While stress, emotional labour, and lack of social support have been identified as major predictors (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e), there has been limited attention to internal psychological and cognitive factors that may protect against burnout. In particular, the psychological mechanisms through which coaching related knowledge may contribute to resilience against burnout remain insufficiently understood.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach knowledge represents a central cognitive foundation that may influence how coaches make sense of performance pressures, regulate motivation, and engage with athletes over time (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). Recent research indicates that coaches who articulate clear visions, goals, values, and performance indicators are better equipped to manage uncertainty, foster team cohesion, and convert expertise into meaningful performance outcomes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). From this perspective, coach knowledge has been consistently identified as a core component of coaching expertise, while its influence is realised through how knowledge is interpreted, enacted, and embedded within coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological functioning and day-to-day interpersonal practice (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e). Psychological capital offers a theoretically grounded lens through which to examine how coaches mobilise psychological resources under pressure. In this study, psychological capital is assumed to facilitate more constructive coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships, which may in turn be associated with lower burnout risk. The present study aims to examine psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality as sequential mechanisms through which coach knowledge influences burnout among high-level football coaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Coach Knowledge as a Multidimensional Cognitive Resource\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach knowledge has been consistently identified as a core component of coaching expertise and effectiveness (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary coaching frameworks conceptualise coach knowledge as a multidimensional cognitive resource encompassing professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal domains (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Professional knowledge refers to coaches\u0026rsquo; declarative and procedural understanding of sport sciences, sport-specific content, and pedagogy required to plan, deliver, and evaluate training. Interpersonal knowledge reflects coaches\u0026rsquo; capacity to communicate effectively and manage reciprocal interactions with athletes and other stakeholders within diverse social contexts. Intrapersonal knowledge concerns self-awareness, reflection, and introspection, enabling coaches to critically evaluate practice, learn from experience, and adapt to athletes\u0026rsquo; individual and cultural needs (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Over the past decade, this tripartite conceptualisation has dominated empirical research on coaching knowledge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e), and has informed the design of coach education and development programmes across a wide range of sport systems (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e). While current research has predominantly examined coach knowledge in relation to coaching effectiveness and performance outcomes, these knowledge domains collectively contribute to coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological functioning (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical validation of the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire (CKQ) indicates that professional and interpersonal knowledge (PIK) operate as explicit, declarative forms of knowledge embedded in coaches\u0026rsquo; everyday instructional and relational practices (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, these two knowledge domains are cognitively intertwined and psychometrically inseparable, forming a single professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal factor. In contrast, intrapersonal knowledge (IK), encompassing reflective practice, emotional awareness, and coaching philosophy, represents a more implicit and introspective domain that is less directly observable in routine coaching behaviours and therefore emerges as a distinct second factor. Coaches with higher levels of PIK tend to report greater instructional clarity, decision confidence, and athlete-centred behaviours, whereas IK is more strongly associated with self-reflection, self-awareness, and adaptive learning over time (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the present study modelled PIK and IK as two distinct latent variables rather than treating CKQ as a single global construct. This specification allows for a more fine-grained examination of how different forms of coach knowledge relate to burnout processes. Conceptually, PIK reflects externally enacted knowledge embedded in instructional, relational, and organisational practices, whereas IK captures internally oriented reflective and self-regulatory capacities. Analytically, separating these domains enables the identification of differentiated pathways through which coach knowledge may influence psychological capital, relational processes, and ultimately burnout.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Psychological Capital as a Psychological Resource in Coaching\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological capital originates from positive organisational behaviour theory and is defined as a developable, state-like psychological resource comprising self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e). Across occupational contexts, psychological capital has been consistently associated with higher wellbeing, engagement, and performance, as well as lower stress and burnout (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). In sport organisations, Psychological capital has been linked to adaptive coping, emotional regulation, and sustained commitment among coaches and sport employees (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, knowledge-based resources enhance individuals\u0026rsquo; sense of control, clarity, and goal coherence, which in turn support the development of psychological capital (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e). Psychological capital has also been shown to function as a mediating mechanism linking cognitive or skill-based resources to wellbeing outcomes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). In sport settings, coaches and sport employees with stronger psychological capital show superior emotional control, perseverance, and commitment (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, psychological capital has mediated relationships between coping strategies, perceived stress, and burnout, highlighting its role as a psychological bridge between capability and emotional outcomes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e). For example, psychological capital has been found to mitigate burnout by fostering better coping mechanisms and adaptive responses to stress (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3 Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship Quality as a Relational Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship represents a fundamental interpersonal context in which coaching expertise and psychological resources are enacted (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). According to Jowett\u0026rsquo;s model, relationship quality comprises closeness (affective bonds such as trust and respect), commitment (cognitive intention to maintain the relationship), and complementarity (cooperative and coordinated interaction patterns) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e). Systematic reviews from coaches\u0026rsquo; perspectives further indicate that relationship quality is a key determinant of occupational sustainability and vulnerability to burnout (McShan \u0026amp; Moore, 2023). Critically, relationship quality has been identified as a protective factor against burnout. Supportive, trusting, and cooperative relationships buffer emotional exhaustion and sport devaluation by fostering shared purpose, psychological safety, and interpersonal support (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.4 Coach Burnout as a Relationally Embedded Psychological Outcome\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBurnout in sport was initially conceptualised as a multidimensional syndrome reflecting prolonged psychological responses to chronic occupational stressors inherent in high-performance sport environments, comprising emotional and physical exhaustion, sport devaluation, and a reduced sense of accomplishment (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Within coaching populations, burnout has been consistently associated with excessive workload, time pressure, role ambiguity, and insufficient recovery across competitive seasons (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). In elite football contexts, burnout risk is amplified by the convergence of performance-driven evaluation, unstable employment conditions, and continuous interpersonal demands (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). Longitudinal evidence indicates that burnout symptoms among high-performance coaches fluctuate across the season but can accumulate when stressors persist without adequate psychological or social resources (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary burnout research increasingly conceptualises burnout as relationally embedded, rather than solely as an individual stress response (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e). Gustafsson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e) argue that burnout emerges from continuous transactions between individuals and their social environments, highlighting the role of interpersonal relationships in shaping emotional exhaustion and devaluation processes. For coaches, whose professional identity and daily work are inseparable from sustained interaction with athletes, the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship constitutes a salient interpersonal context that may shape vulnerability to burnout. Empirical studies have linked higher relationship quality to lower burnout-related symptoms in sport settings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, existing research has primarily examined coach knowledge in relation to coaching effectiveness and performance, with limited attention to its role in shaping coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological wellbeing. Little is known about how different forms of coach knowledge contribute to positive psychological resources that may protect against burnout, or how such resources are enacted within coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships. Although psychological capital and relationship quality have each been linked to burnout, they are rarely integrated within explanatory models that account for upstream cognitive antecedents. As a result, current research provides limited insight into how cognitive, psychological, and relational processes jointly influence burnout in elite coaching contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.5 An Integrated Framework Linking Coach Knowledge, Psychological Capital, Relationship Quality, and Burnout\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on this literature, the present study advances an integrated mediation framework in which coach knowledge, operationalised as two latent constructs, PIK and IK, is sequentially linked to coach burnout through psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this assumed framework, PIK and IK form foundational cognitive resources. Psychological capital is positioned as a psychological reservoir emerging from these knowledge structures, reflecting how coaches translate knowledge into confidence, goal-directed motivation, adaptive recovery, and positive future expectations. However, psychological resources alone may not directly protect against burnout unless they are enacted within coaches\u0026rsquo; relational environments. Accordingly, coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality is conceptualised as the proximal relational mechanism through which psychological capital influences burnout outcomes. In elite football contexts, where coaching work is inseparable from sustained interpersonal engagement, burnout is understood as a downstream consequence of how cognitive and psychological resources are expressed through everyday relational functioning. Therefore, the hypotheses were proposed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypotheses 1: Professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal coach knowledge and intrapersonal coach knowledge are positively associated with psychological capital.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypotheses 2: Psychological capital is positively associated with coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality and mediates the relationship between coach knowledge and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHypotheses 3: Psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality sequentially mediate the relationships between coach knowledge (professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal and intrapersonal) and coach burnout.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 221 high-level football coaches participated in this study. Coaches were recruited through professional coaching networks and football organisations. Eligibility criteria required participants to: (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) hold an Asian Football Confederation B-level coaching licence or above; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) be actively coaching an organised football team at the time of data collection; and (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) have direct responsibility for training design, training implementation, and athlete management within their current coaching role.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample was predominantly male (87.33%, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;193), with female coaches accounting for 12.67% (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28). Participants were primarily aged 31\u0026ndash;40 years (43.44%) and 41\u0026ndash;50 years (37.10%). Coaches were drawn from a range of competitive contexts, including universities (30.32%), high-level youth training institutions (19.46%), professional club first teams (15.84%), professional reserve teams (13.57%), high school teams (10.86%), provincial teams (7.69%), and national teams (2.26%). Most participants held advanced coaching qualifications, with A-level licences (52.94%) and B-level licences (36.65%) predominating; 10.41% held professional-level certifications. Nearly half of the sample (48.87%) reported more than six years of experience with their current team, indicating substantial coaching experience in performance-oriented football environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using an anonymous online questionnaire administered via Wenjuanxing, a widely used online survey platform in China that is commonly employed in academic research and provides standardised procedures for participant anonymity and data security.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport. Potential participants were contacted through on-site visits and email invitations to assess their interest in the study. Coaches who expressed interest received a participant information sheet outlining the study purpose, procedures, and ethical considerations, along with an informed consent form. After providing informed consent, participants were invited to complete a multi-section online questionnaire. To minimise common method bias, participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and the questionnaire emphasised that there were no right or wrong answers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e). Participation was voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Measures instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll Questionnaires were translated into Mandarin Chinese using a collaborative and iterative translation approach, integrating back-translation procedures with conceptual review and adjudication, as recommended by Douglas and Craig (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e). This approach goes beyond literal equivalence and places particular emphasis on conceptual and functional equivalence across languages and cultural contexts. Specifically, the original English questionnaires were first translated into Mandarin Chinese by the first author, who completed doctoral degree in an English-speaking country (United Kingdom) and possesses advanced academic proficiency in both languages. The Chinese versions were then independently reviewed and back-translated into English by the second author, who obtained a doctoral degree in a European country and is fluent in both English and Mandarin. Discrepancies between the original and back-translated versions were discussed collaboratively by the two authors, with particular attention to preserving conceptual meaning, response scale interpretation, and contextual relevance within elite sport and coaching settings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Coach knowledge\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach knowledge was assessed using the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire (CKQ) developed and validated by Quinaud et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). The CKQ comprises 13 items, loading on two empirically supported dimensions: PIK (8 items) and IK (5 items), rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). Previous validation studies have reported strong reliability for both dimensions, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.89 for PIK and 0.83 for IK (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e). In the present sample, both CKQ dimensions demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients of α = [0.90] for PIK and α = [0.88] for IK.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.2 Psychological capital\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological capital was measured using the 12-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ-12), which has been validated across occupational, sport, and exercise contexts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Use of the PCQ-12 was authorised by Mind Garden, Inc. under a research licence obtained by the corresponding author. The PCQ-12 comprises four dimensions: self-efficacy (3 items), hope (4 items), resilience (3 items), and optimism (2 items). Items were rated on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In the present sample, the overall psychological capital scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α = [0.94]). At the dimension level, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficients were α = [0.91] for self-efficacy, α = [0.87] for hope, α = [0.86] for resilience, and α = [0.85] for optimism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality was assessed using the Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e), adapted for the coach self-report perspective (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e). The CART-Q consists of 11 items measuring three relational dimensions: closeness (4 items), commitment (3 items), and complementarity (4 items). Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Consistent with established practice, scores from the three subscales were aggregated to form a composite index of overall coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. Previous research has demonstrated the CART-Q to possess sound psychometric properties across cultural and sport contexts (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e). In the present sample, the CART-Q demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.91).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.4 Coach burnout\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach burnout was assessed using the Coach Burnout Questionnaire (CBQ) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e), adapted from the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire developed by Raedeke and Smith (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) and subsequently applied to coaching populations. The questionnaire consists of 15 items assessing three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced sense of accomplishment, with five items per dimension. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater burnout. Within the reduced sense of accomplishment subscale, two positively worded items (Items 1 and 4) were reverse coded prior to analysis so that higher scores consistently reflected higher levels of burnout across all dimensions. Consistent with previous research, the CBQ demonstrated good internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.88).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Data screening and preliminary analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior to model testing, data were screened for missing values, distributional properties, and potential outliers following established recommendations for structural equation modelling (SEM) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). Univariate normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis indices, with all values falling within acceptable thresholds for maximum likelihood estimation (|skewness| \u0026lt; 2; |kurtosis| \u0026lt; 7) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e). Multivariate outliers were examined using Mahalanobis distance, with reference to the χ\u0026sup2; critical value at p \u0026lt; .001 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e). Based on this criterion, six cases exceeded the critical value and were removed from subsequent analyses to reduce the influence of extreme multivariate response patterns. The final analytical sample therefore comprised 215 coaches. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables, and bivariate Pearson correlations were computed to examine preliminary associations among coach knowledge, psychological capital dimensions, coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality, and burnout (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Main analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary aim of the analyses was to examine the mechanisms linking coach knowledge to coach burnout, with particular emphasis on the mediating roles of psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. A structural model was tested in which two dimensions of coach knowledge, PIK and IK, were specified as exogenous variables predicting burnout indirectly through psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCovariance-based SEM was conducted using AMOS 28.0, following the two-step procedure recommended by Kline (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). In the first step, CFA was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the measurement model. Construct reliability and convergent validity were assessed using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), with values of CR \u0026ge; .70 and AVE \u0026ge; .50 indicating acceptable measurement quality (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e). Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices, including the chi-square statistic (χ\u0026sup2;), normed chi-square (χ\u0026sup2;/df), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker\u0026ndash;Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals. In line with established guidelines, CFI and TLI values \u0026ge; .90 and RMSEA \u0026le; .08 were taken to indicate acceptable model fit (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). In the second step, the structural model was estimated to test the hypothesised relationships among coach knowledge, psychological capital, coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality, and burnout. Standardised path coefficients were examined, with effect sizes interpreted according to recommended benchmarks for SEM (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Mediation analysis and bootstrapping\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation effects were tested using bias-corrected bootstrap procedures (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, 5,000 bootstrap resamples were used to estimate indirect effects and corresponding 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals. An indirect effect was considered statistically significant if the confidence interval did not include zero (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05). Psychological capital was modelled as a latent mediator linking the two coach knowledge dimensions to coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality, which in turn served as a proximal mediator predicting burnout. This sequential mediation framework allowed examination of how distinct domains of coach knowledge are translated into burnout outcomes through psychological and relational mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Preliminary analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing data screening, a total of 215 cases were retained for analysis. No missing values were identified in the final dataset. Skewness values ranged from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.97 to 0.73 and kurtosis values ranged from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.40 to 0.62 across all observed variables, indicating acceptable univariate normality for maximum likelihood estimation (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among the study variables are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Mean scores indicated relatively high levels of coach knowledge, psychological capital, and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality, alongside comparatively lower levels of burnout. Specifically, coaches reported higher scores for PIK (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.27, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51) and IK (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.20, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.54), as well as for psychological capital (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.20, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63) and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.30, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and reliability of study variables (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;215)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. CKQ_PIK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. CKQ_IK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.796**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. PsyCap\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.745**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.767**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. CART\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.559**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.557**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.602**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.136*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.196**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.175*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote. * p \u0026lt; .05. ** p \u0026lt; .01; M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Mean; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Standard Deviation.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation analyses showed that both dimensions of coach knowledge were positively associated with psychological capital (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.745\u0026ndash;0.767, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.557\u0026ndash;0.559, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Psychological capital was also positively related to coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.602, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Burnout was negatively associated with PIK (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.136, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), psychological capital (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.196, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.175, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Measurement and structural model\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCFA was conducted to evaluate the adequacy of the measurement model. The measurement model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, χ\u0026sup2;(218)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;369.36, χ\u0026sup2;/df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.648, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.958, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.951, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.055 (90% CI [.045, .065]) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and exceeded 0.70. In order to assess convergent validity, AVE was computed for each latent construct. The AVE values indicate satisfactory convergent validity for all constructs (PIK\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.54; IK\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.60; Psychological Capital\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.70; Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship Quality\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.78; and Coach Burnout\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.67).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoodness-of-fit indices for the measurement and structural models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;/df\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSEA (90% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeasurement model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e359.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e218\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.648\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.055 (.045 \u0026ndash;.065)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.958\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.951\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e397.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e220\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.807\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.061(.052 \u0026ndash;.071)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.947\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.940\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote. χ\u0026sup2; = chi-square; df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;degrees of freedom; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;root mean square error of approximation; CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;confidence interval; PCLOSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;p value for test of close fit (RMSEA \u0026le; .05); CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;comparative fit index; TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Tucker\u0026ndash;Lewis index;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Structural paths and indirect effects\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing confirmation of an acceptable measurement model, the structural model was tested and demonstrated adequate fit to the data (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). As hypothesised, both PIK and IK were positively associated with psychological capital (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.29 and β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.60, R\u0026sup2;=0.75). Psychological capital, in turn, positively predicted coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.46, R\u0026sup2;=0.45). Relationship quality was negatively associated with burnout (β=\u0026minus;0.21), whereas the direct effects of coach knowledge dimensions and psychological capital on burnout were non-significant. Overall, the model explained 8.4% of the variance in burnout (R\u0026sup2;=0.084), indicating that coach knowledge influenced burnout primarily through indirect pathways via psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e)。\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Path Coefficients of the SEM Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; Psychological Capital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.289\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; Psychological Capital\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.673\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.148\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.602\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.234\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.177\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.260\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.097\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.257\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.706\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological Capital \u0026rarr; Coach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.560\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.179\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.456\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological Capital \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.528\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.321\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;1.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.145\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.208\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;2.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.405\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.050\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.784\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK\u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.612\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.448\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.298\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNote. B\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;unstandardized estimate; β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardized coefficient; SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standard error; CR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;critical ratio; *** p\u0026lt;.001. CKQ_PIK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Professional and Interpersonal Knowledge; CKQ_IK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Intrapersonal knowledge.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect effects were examined using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Results indicated significant sequential indirect effects from both coach knowledge dimensions to burnout through psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. Specifically, PIK showed a significant indirect effect on burnout via psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.117, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.401, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.013], p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.022), and IK showed a similar sequential indirect effect (\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.061, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.291, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.002], p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.034). In contrast, indirect pathways involving psychological capital or coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality alone were non-significant, as were all direct and total effects. These findings suggest that the influence of coach knowledge on burnout operates exclusively through a sequential transformation from psychological capital to relational functioning, rather than through isolated psychological or relational mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBootstrap Results for Indirect Effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndirect effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% BC CI Lower\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% BC CI Upper\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.838\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.670\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.732\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.612\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.153\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; CART\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.196\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.572\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; CART\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.377\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.062\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.865\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; CART \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.376\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.257\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_PIK\u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.185\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.596\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.074\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; CART \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.646\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.355\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;1.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.033\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCKQ_PIK \u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; CART \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.117\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.401\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.013\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.022\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCKQ_IK \u0026rarr; PsyCap \u0026rarr; CART \u0026rarr; Burnout\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.061\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.291\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026minus;0.002\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.034\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eNotes. Bootstrap\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5,000 samples; Significant indirect effects are those with confidence intervals not crossing zero. CKQ_PIK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Professional and Interpersonal Knowledge; CKQ_IK= Coach Knowledge Questionnaire Intrapersonal knowledge; PsyCap=psychological capital; CART= coach and athlete relationship.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough total effects were non-significant, the presence of significant sequential indirect effects supports a process-oriented account, suggesting that coach knowledge influences burnout only when cognitive resources are transformed into psychological capital and subsequently enacted within the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.1 Psychological Capital as a Knowledge-Mobilisation Mechanism in Coaching\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings support Hypothesis 1, indicating that both PIK and IK are positively associated with psychological capital. Within the Coach Knowledge Questionnaire, coach knowledge is conceptualised as a multidimensional and integrated cognitive resource encompassing professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal and intrapersonal domains (1) (18). PIK reflects coaches\u0026rsquo; capacity to design and structure training processes, manage training environments, implement pedagogical interventions (e.g., instruction, feedback, task regulation), evaluate athletes\u0026rsquo; technical, physical, and psychological characteristics, and guide long-term athlete development within complex social systems (18) (23). Consistent with this conceptualisation, the present findings indicate that PIK is positively associated with coaches\u0026rsquo; overall psychological capital. In elite football environments characterised by uncertainty, performance volatility, and sustained evaluative pressure, such knowledge and experience based competencies may foster psychological capital as a practice-embedded and experience-grounded resource rather than a dispositional trait detached from professional practice (9) (26). Coaches operating at higher levels of PIK tend to exhibit elevated self-efficacy in task execution, sustained goal-directed motivation, and more positive expectations regarding future performance trajectories, reflecting key psychological resources required for functioning under sustained performance pressure (9) (28).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIK, involving reflective practice, self-awareness, emotional regulation, and critical appraisal of one\u0026rsquo;s coaching philosophy, also emerged as a significant predictor of psychological capital. Within psychological capital theory, such processes are foundational to the development of self-regulatory capacities that enable persistence, recovery from adversity, and constructive engagement with challenges (27) (62). In high-performance football contexts, where coaches face public scrutiny, unstable employment conditions, and ongoing performance demands, IK may thus serve as a critical cognitive foundation for the accumulation of psychological capital across time (47).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the psychological capital among elite football coaches is situated within the epistemic and experiential foundations of coaching practice, highlighting that coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological resources are significantly shaped by what they know, how they reflect, and how they engage with the elite football environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.2 Psychological Capital and the Relational Enactment of Coaching Resources\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eproposed that psychological capital would be positively associated with coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. Consistent with this hypothesis, the findings indicate that higher levels of psychological capital are associated with stronger perceived relationship quality between coaches and athletes. From a relational perspective, the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship is grounded in affective closeness, cognitive commitment, and behavioural complementarity (40) (41). Coaches with higher psychological capital may be better equipped to foster these relational qualities by sustaining constructive emotional tone, maintaining shared goals, and coordinating behaviour effectively under pressure (63).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical research lends support to this interpretation. Studies from both athlete and coach perspectives have shown that positive psychological resources are associated with more supportive communication, autonomy-supportive behaviours, and relationship maintenance strategies, all of which contribute to higher-quality coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships (64) (54) (65). Moreover, organisational and sport psychology research indicates that psychological capital is positively related to interpersonal trust, social cohesion, and constructive relational climates, particularly in high-pressure performance environments (26) (28) (66).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings indicate that coach knowledge is not directly associated with coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality; instead, its association with relationship quality is statistically evident through psychological capital. Specifically, higher levels of psychological capital were positively related to stronger coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships, and psychological capital significantly mediated the associations between both dimensions of coach knowledge and relationship quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this framework, psychological capital functions as a key cognitive\u0026ndash;motivational conduit through which coaches\u0026rsquo; professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal and IK is internalised, interpreted, and expressed in everyday relational interactions. While coach knowledge provides the structural and cognitive foundations for coaching practice, psychological capital, particularly its future-oriented and motivational components, appears to function as a proximal psychological mechanism through which such knowledge is mobilised. Through this mechanism, coaches\u0026rsquo; knowledge is more likely to be translated into relationally relevant behaviours within interpersonal contexts (9). This interpretation is consistent with research indicating that interpersonal relationship quality in coaching is more strongly determined by coaches\u0026rsquo; leadership, affective tone, and communicative behaviours than by technical expertise or task competence alone (64) (67). From this perspective, psychological capital may serve to transform knowledge from a latent cognitive asset into a relationally visible resource, enabling coaches to sustain constructive interaction patterns, convey positive expectations, and maintain relational alignment with athletes over time (62) (65).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.3 Serial mediation pathways linking coach knowledge and burnout\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eproposed that the association between coach knowledge and burnout would be explained through a serial mediation process involving psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. The findings support for this hypothesis. The present findings indicate that coach knowledge did not exert a direct effect on burnout. This result is theoretically meaningful, as knowledge, even when it underpins planning, decision-making, and reflective practice, does not automatically insulate coaches from chronic psychological strain. Rather, its protective potential depends on whether knowledge is cognitively and emotionally mobilised through goal-directed thinking, positive expectancy, and adaptive sense-making processes (9). Therefore, coach knowledge does not exert a protective effect against burnout through isolated psychological or relational mechanisms. Similar conclusions have been reported in previous research, indicating that neither internal coping resources nor relational functioning alone is sufficient to offset sustained occupational stress in elite sport environments (47) (68).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the overall proportion of variance in burnout explained by the model was modest (R\u0026sup2; = 0.084), this magnitude is theoretically consistent with prior burnout research in elite sport contexts. Coach burnout is widely recognised as a multifactorial outcome shaped by a broad constellation of organisational, occupational, and personal stressors, including workload, job insecurity, organisational climate, time pressure, and recovery opportunities (4) (13). As such, no single cognitive or psychological pathway would be expected to account for a large proportion of variance in burnout when examined in isolation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a psychological capital perspective, although a high-level psychological capital supports self-regulation, persistence, and adaptive coping at the individual level (28), its influence on burnout may be limited when these resources are not enacted within the relational context of coaching work. Applied research in education similarly suggests that psychological capital can reduce burnout risk by supporting proactive coping (69), but also implies a boundary condition: personal psychological resources may not translate into improved wellbeing when they remain largely intrapersonal. Likewise, coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality is shaped primarily through sustained interaction patterns, communication behaviours, and affective exchange, rather than by cognitive expertise alone (64), helping to explain the absence of a relationship-only mediation effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, significant indirect effects emerged only when psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality were modelled sequentially. Within this framework, psychological capital functions as a necessary intermediate layer that activates and channels coaches\u0026rsquo; knowledge into relationally meaningful engagement, while coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality represents the proximal interpersonal context in which these psychologically mobilised resources become consequential for burnout outcomes. As Jowett (41) emphasises, high-quality relationships, effective communication, and appropriate leadership form the core foundations of effective coaching; accordingly, psychological capital may play a \u0026ldquo;transformational\u0026rdquo; role in enabling coaches to sustain constructive interaction patterns, convey positive yet realistic expectations, and maintain goal alignment with athletes over time (62) (65). This interpretation aligns with contemporary views that burnout is embedded in ongoing social exchanges (70) (47), and with evidence that high-quality coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships are reliably associated with lower burnout indicators (71) (72) (73). More broadly, personal resources exert their protective effects most strongly when embedded within supportive social relationships (74) (63).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present findings therefore suggest that coach knowledge represents one contributory resource within a much wider burnout ecology, exerting its influence only when psychologically mobilised and relationally enacted. In applied terms, this indicates that enhancing coach knowledge alone is unlikely to substantially reduce burnout risk unless it is embedded within broader organisational, relational, and recovery-supportive systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e4.4 Differential roles of PIK and IK in burnout processes\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present findings also reveal functional differences between PIK and IK within this process, suggesting that the both domains of knowledge contribute to burnout prevention through complementary but non-identical mechanisms. First, IK demonstrated a stronger association with psychological capital than PIK. IK encompasses reflective practice, awareness of emotional responses, and the capacity to critically evaluate one\u0026rsquo;s coaching philosophy over time (18). These capacities closely align with the conceptual foundations of psychological capital, such as hope and optimism, which emphasise internal meaning-making, emotional regulation, and future-oriented self-appraisal which support relational sensitivity and sustained interpersonal engagement under evaluative pressure (26) (62) (75).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, although IK showed a stronger association with psychological capital and a larger indirect effect on coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality via psychological capital, the serial indirect effect on burnout was stronger for PIK. IK primarily supports the internal mobilisation of psychological resources that enhance relational sensitivity and alignment, whereas PIK appears more consequential at the downstream stage where relational experiences are converted into sustained reductions in burnout. PIK reflects coaches\u0026rsquo; capacity to integrate sport-specific expertise with pedagogical, organisational, and leadership competencies, enabling them to structure training systems, regulate interpersonal dynamics, take situational judgement, and adapt coaching behaviours within complex sport and social environments (1) (18) (67). These applied competencies are structurally embedded in the day-to-day regulation of workload, interpersonal demands, and role expectations, thereby shaping the cumulative conditions under which emotional exhaustion, sport devaluation, and reduced personal accomplishment emerge in coaching. As such, professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal knowledge may reduce the cumulative relational \u0026ldquo;cost\u0026rdquo; of coaching by structuring interactions in more efficient, predictable, and less emotionally taxing ways (67) (76) (77) (78). When psychological capital enhances relationship quality, professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal knowledge appears to enable these relationships to function as effective protective mechanisms against burnout. Rather than merely strengthening relational closeness, it facilitates the enactment of high-quality relationships through coordinated behaviour, clear communication, and reduced interactional friction, thereby amplifying the buffering effect of relationships on burnout symptoms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study advances understanding of coach burnout by integrating cognitive, psychological, and relational perspectives within a single explanatory framework. Drawing on data from high-level football coaches, the findings demonstrate that coach knowledge, operationalised as professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal and intrapersonal domains, does not exert a direct protective effect against burnout. Instead, its influence operates through a sequential process in which knowledge contributes to the development of psychological capital, which is subsequently enacted within the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeither psychological capital nor coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality alone was sufficient to mediate the association between coach knowledge and burnout. Significant indirect effects emerged only when psychological capital and relationship quality functioned together, highlighting the necessity of considering both internal psychological mobilisation and interpersonal enactment. This pattern also suggests that intrapersonal knowledge primarily supports the internal mobilisation of psychological capital, whereas professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal knowledge may be particularly consequential at the downstream stage where relational experiences are translated into sustained patterns of emotional demand and occupational burnout.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings have important theoretical implications by indicating a process-oriented account of how knowledge, psychological resources, and relationships jointly alleviate coach burnout. Practically, the results suggest that burnout prevention initiatives in elite football should move beyond technical coach education or individual coping interventions, and instead foster psychological capital development alongside relational competencies that support constructive, trusting, and goal-aligned coach\u0026ndash;athlete interactions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Limitations and Future Research Directions","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference regarding the proposed sequential mechanisms. Although the model is theoretically grounded, longitudinal or intensive longitudinal designs are needed to examine how coach knowledge is transformed into psychological capital and relational processes over time. Second, the explained variance in burnout was modest, reflecting the multifactorial nature of coach burnout. Burnout is shaped by a wide range of organisational and contextual factors (e.g., workload, job insecurity, organisational climate) that were not included in the present model. Finally, the sample was limited to high-level football coaches within a specific cultural context, which may constrain generalisability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should extend this work by (a) testing the proposed mechanisms longitudinally, (b) embedding cognitive\u0026ndash;psychological mechanisms within broader multilevel frameworks to capture both individual and structural influences, and (c) exploring how distinct knowledge domains interact with specific burnout dimensions. Such work would advance a process-oriented understanding of how coach knowledge contributes to wellbeing through psychological and relational pathways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCKQ\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach Knowledge Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePIK\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProfessional and Interpersonal Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIK\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntrapersonal Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePCQ-12\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePsychological Capital Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCART-Q\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach\u0026ndash;Athlete Relationship Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCBQ\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach Burnout Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSEM\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural Equation Modelling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCR\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComposite reliability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eAVE\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage variance extracted\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ethe chi-square statistic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eχ\u0026sup2;/df\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormed chi-square\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCFI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative fit index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTLI\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTucker\u0026ndash;Lewis index\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eRMSEA\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Shanghai University of Sport prior to data collection. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national regulations. Participation was entirely voluntary. Before completing the survey, participants were provided with detailed information regarding the purpose of the study, the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses, and their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Informed consent was obtained electronically, with participants indicating their agreement by selecting a consent option on the first page of the online questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was supported by Shanghai University of Sport (2025STD020).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eR.T. and C.G. were responsible for the study conception and overall research design. N.Z. carried out data collection and organisation in collaboration with C.G. R.T., and C.G. conducted the statistical analyses and contributed to the interpretation of the results. R.T. and N.Z prepared the first draft of the manuscript. C.G. provided critical revisions and substantive intellectual input throughout the manuscript development. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData will be made available on request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eC\u0026ocirc;t\u0026eacute; J, Gilbert W. An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J sports Sci coaching. 2009;4(3):307\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJowett S. Coaching effectiveness: The coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship at its heart. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:154\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLyle J, Cushion C. Sport coaching concepts: A framework for coaching practice. Routledge; 2016.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaedeke TD, Smith AL. Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure. J sport Exerc Psychol. 2001;23(4):281\u0026ndash;306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodger K, Gorely T, Lavallee D, Harwood C. Burnout in sport: A systematic review. sport Psychol. 2007;21(2):127\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNeill K, Durand-Bush N, Lemyre P-N. Understanding coach burnout and underlying emotions: A narrative approach. Emotions in sport coaching. Routledge; 2018. pp. 51\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaedeke TD, Kentt\u0026auml; G. Coach burnout. Routledge handbook of sports coaching. Routledge; 2013. pp. 424\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltfeld S, Mallett CJ, Kellmann M. Coaches\u0026rsquo; burnout, stress, and recovery over a season: A longitudinal study. Int Sport Coaching J. 2015;2(2):137\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlusoga P, Bentzen M, Kentta G. Coach burnout: A scoping review. Int Sport Coaching J. 2019;6(1):42\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAckeret N, R\u0026ouml;thlin P, Allemand M, Krieger T, Berger T, Znoj H, et al. Six-month stability of individual differences in sports coaches\u0026rsquo; burnout, self-compassion and social support. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2022;61:102207.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalinauskas R, Malinauskiene V, editors. Characteristics of stress and burnout among Lithuanian university coaches: a pre-pandemic coronavirus and post-pandemic period comparison. Healthcare: MDPI; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFletcher D, Scott M. Psychological stress in sports coaches: A review of concepts, research, and practice. J Sports Sci. 2010;28(2):127\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBentzen M, Lemyre N, Kentt\u0026auml; G. A comparison of high-performance football coaches experiencing high-versus low-burnout symptoms across a season of play: Quality of motivation and recovery matters. Int Sport Coaching J. 2017;4(2):133\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarner RJ, Wagstaff C, Thelwell R, Corbett J. A multistudy examination of organizational stressors, emotional labor, burnout, and turnover in sport organizations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(12):2103\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGonz\u0026aacute;lez-Garc\u0026iacute;a H, Martinent G, Trinidad Morales A. Perceived coach leadership profiles and relationship with burnout, coping, and emotions. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1785.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee YH, Chelladurai P. Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. Eur Sport Manage Q. 2018;18(4):393\u0026ndash;412.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKang S, Lee S. A systematic review of psychological difficulties among elite sports coaches. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1666035.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuinaud RT, Backes AF, Nascimento Junior JRAd, Carvalho HM, Milistetd M. Development and validation of the coach knowledge questionnaire: measuring coaches\u0026rsquo; professional, interpersonal and intrapersonal knowledge. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2022;20(1):302\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez de Subijana C, Pons J, Mallett CJ. How is coaches\u0026rsquo; social identity leadership related to mental health in elite athletes? The mediating role of satisfaction with performance. J Sports Sci. 2024;42(23):2183\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis L, Jowett S. Coach\u0026ndash;athlete attachment and the quality of the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship: Implications for athlete\u0026rsquo;s well-being. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(15):1454\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerntsen H, Kristiansen E. Successful coach learning: Digital workbook informed by pedagogical principles. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2019;14(3):310\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoberts AH, Greenwood DA, Stanley M, Humberstone C, Iredale F, Raynor A. Coach knowledge in talent identification: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Sci Med sport. 2019;22(10):1163\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStodter A, Cushion CJ. Evidencing the impact of coaches\u0026rsquo; learning: Changes in coaching knowledge and practice over time. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(18):2086\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStoszkowski J, Collins D. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(9):794\u0026ndash;802.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGilbert W, C\u0026ocirc;t\u0026eacute; J. Defining coaching effectiveness: a focus on coaches' knowledge. Routledge handbook of sports coaching. Routledge; 2013. pp. 147\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol. 2007;60(3):541\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM. Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Rev organizational Psychol organizational Behav. 2017;4(1):339\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvey JB, Avolio BJ, Luthans F. Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(2):282\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLupșa D, V\u0026icirc;rgă D. Psychological capital, health, and performance: the mediating role of burnout. Psihologia Resurselor Umane. 2020;18(1):7\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim M, Perrew\u0026eacute; PL, Kim YK, Kim ACH. Psychological capital in sport organizations: Hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism among employees in sport (HEROES). Eur Sport Manage Q. 2017;17(5):659\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim M, Kim ACH, Newman JI, Ferris GR, Perrew\u0026eacute; PL. The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: The role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations. Sport Manage Rev. 2019;22(1):108\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurhanuddin NAN, Ahmad NA, Said RR, Asimiran S. A systematic review of the psychological capital (PsyCap) research development: Implementation and gaps. Int J Acad Res Progressive Educ Dev. 2019;8(3):133\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoswami AK, Agrawal RK. It\u0026rsquo;sa knowledge centric world! Does ethical leadership promote knowledge sharing and knowledge creation? Psychological capital as mediator and shared goals as moderator. J Knowl Manage. 2023;27(3):584\u0026ndash;612.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyala Calvo JC, Manzano Garc\u0026iacute;a G. The influence of psychological capital on graduates\u0026rsquo; perception of employability: the mediating role of employability skills. High Educ Res Dev. 2021;40(2):293\u0026ndash;308.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarmona\u0026ndash;Halty M, Salanova M, Llorens S, Schaufeli WB. How psychological capital mediates between study\u0026ndash;related positive emotions and academic performance. J Happiness Stud. 2019;20(2):605\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu X, Xing S, Yang Y. The relationship between psychological capital and athlete burnout: the mediating relationship of coping strategies and the moderating relationship of perceived stress. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRehman Su, Qingren C, Latif Y, Iqbal P. Impact of psychological capital on occupational burnout and performance of faculty members. Int J Educational Manage. 2017;31(4):455\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGong Z, Chen Y, Wang Y. The influence of emotional intelligence on job burnout and job performance: Mediating effect of psychological capital. Front Psychol. 2019;10:486722.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJowett S, Poczwardowski A. Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. 2007.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJowett S, Ntoumanis N. The coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(4):245\u0026ndash;57.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJowett S. The coach-athlete relationship within a cross-boundary team of experts: a conceptual analysis. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2024:1\u0026ndash;16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis L, Jowett S, Tafvelin S. Communication strategies: The fuel for quality coach-athlete relationships and athlete satisfaction. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2156.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞenel E, Jowett S, Adiloğulları İ, Kerr-Cumbo R. Investigating the impact of coach behaviours and coach-athlete relationships on psychological safety. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2025;23(7):1051\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIsoard-Gautheur S, Trouilloud D, Gustafsson H, Guillet-Descas E. Associations between the perceived quality of the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship and athlete burnout: An examination of the mediating role of achievement goals. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016;22:210\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWestfall S, Martin EM, Gould D. The association between the coach-athlete relationship and burnout among high school coaches. J Sport Behav. 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGustafsson H, Kentt\u0026auml; G, Hassm\u0026eacute;n P. Athlete burnout: An integrated model and future research directions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011;4(1):3\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGustafsson H, DeFreese J, Madigan DJ. Athlete burnout: Review and recommendations. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;16:109\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeiter MP. Burnout as a developmental process: Consideration of models. Professional burnout: CRC; 2018. pp. 237\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDouglas SP, Craig CS. Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. J Int Mark. 2007;15(1):30\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWernsing T. Psychological capital: A test of measurement invariance across 12 national cultures. J Leadersh Organizational Stud. 2014;21(2):179\u0026ndash;90.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalduck AL, Jowett S. Psychometric properties of the Belgian coach version of the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q). Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(5):779\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVieira LF, Nascimento Junior JRAd, Pujals C, Jowett S, Codonhato R, Vissoci JRN. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q)-Athlete Version. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria \u0026amp; Desempenho Humano. 2015;17:635\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;49.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang SX, Jowett S. Conceptual and measurement issues of the complementarity dimension of the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship across cultures. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(6):830\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalinauskas R, Malinauskiene V, Dumciene A. Burnout and perceived stress among university coaches in Lithuania. J Occup Health. 2010;52(5):302\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyu E. Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43(4):1066\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiang S, Nie F, Zhang C. Learning a Mahalanobis distance metric for data clustering and classification. Pattern Recogn. 2008;41(12):3600\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaur P, Stoltzfus J, Yellapu V. Descriptive statistics. Int J Acad Med. 2018;4(1):60\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manage. 2024;41(2):745\u0026ndash;83.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods. 2008;40(3):879\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological capital and beyond: Oxford University Press; 2015.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarmona-Halty M, Schaufeli WB, Salanova M. Good relationships, good performance: the mediating role of psychological capital\u0026ndash;a three-wave study among students. Front Psychol. 2019;10:306.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRhind DJ, Jowett S. Development of the coach-athlete relationship maintenance questionnaire (CARM-Q). Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2012;7(1):121\u0026ndash;37.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCamir\u0026eacute; M, Rathwell S, Turgeon\u0026sup3; S, Kendellen K. Coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships, basic psychological needs satisfaction and thwarting, and the teaching of life skills in Canadian high school sport. Int J sports Sci coaching. 2019;14(5):591\u0026ndash;606.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoussef-Morgan CM, Luthans F. Psychological capital and well-being. Stress health: J Int Soc Invest Stress. 2015;31(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCushion C, Ford PR, Williams AM. Coach behaviours and practice structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(15):1631\u0026ndash;41.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThelwell RC, Wagstaff CR, Chapman MT, Kentt\u0026auml; G. Examining coaches\u0026rsquo; perceptions of how their stress influences the coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(19):1928\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXue D, Sun B, Li W, Zhou H, Ding F, Xiao W. The symptom network structure of teachers\u0026rsquo; burnout and its connection to psychological capital. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2023:3503\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchaufeli WB. The balance of give and take: Toward a social exchange model of burnout. Revue Int de psychologie sociale. 2006;19(1):75\u0026ndash;119.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParadis K, Carron AV, Martin LJ. Athlete perceptions of intragroup conflict in sport teams. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev. 2014;10(3):4\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePacewicz CE, Mellano KT, Smith AL. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between social constructs and athlete burnout. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;43:155\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞenel E, K\u0026uuml;ttel A, Adiloğulları İ, Jowett S. Psychological predictors of mental well-being in Judo athletes: Exploring the impacts of the coach-athlete relationship, social support, and psychological safety. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2025;79:102850.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHobfoll SE, Halbesleben J, Neveu J-P, Westman M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Rev organizational Psychol organizational Behav. 2018;5(1):103\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman A, Ucbasaran D, Zhu F, Hirst G. Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. J organizational Behav. 2014;35(S1):S120\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHardy J, Eys MA, Carron AV. Exploring the potential disadvantages of high cohesion in sports teams. Small group Res. 2005;36(2):166\u0026ndash;87.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHorn TS. Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerrar P, Hosea L, Henson M, Dubina N, Krueger G, Staff J, et al. Building high performing coach-athlete relationships: The USOC\u0026rsquo;s national team coach leadership education program (NTCLEP). Int Sport Coaching J. 2018;5(1):60\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"football coach, coach knowledge, psychological capital, coach and athlete relationship, coach burnout","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoach burnout is increasingly recognized as a critical issue in high-performance sport, yet existing research has focused primarily on situational stressors and coaching outcomes, with limited attention to the upstream cognitive resources that may protect coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological wellbeing. The present study examined how different forms of coach knowledge are translated into burnout outcomes through psychological and relational mechanisms in elite football coaching contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross-sectional survey design was employed with a sample of 221 high-level football coaches holding Asian Football Confederation B-level licences or above. After data screening and removal of multivariate outliers, 215 cases were retained for analysis. Coach knowledge was operationalised as professional\u0026ndash;interpersonal knowledge and intrapersonal knowledge. Psychological capital, coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality, and coach burnout were assessed using validated instruments. Covariance-based structural equation modelling was conducted using a two-step approach, comprising confirmatory factor analysis followed by structural model testing. Indirect effects were examined using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth dimensions of coach knowledge were positively associated with psychological capital. Psychological capital, in turn, was positively related to coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. The direct paths from coach knowledge to burnout were not significant. However, significant indirect effects emerged through a sequential mediation pathway in which coach knowledge predicted burnout via psychological capital and coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationship quality. The final structural model demonstrated acceptable fit indices, supporting the proposed cognitive\u0026ndash;psychological\u0026ndash;relational mechanism linking coach knowledge to burnout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings indicate that coach knowledge contributes to lower burnout risk indirectly by fostering psychological capital and enhancing the quality of coach\u0026ndash;athlete relationships. These results highlight the importance of viewing coach knowledge not only as a performance-related resource but also as a foundation for coaches\u0026rsquo; psychological resilience and relational functioning. Coach education and professional development programmes may benefit from integrating psychological and interpersonal components alongside technical knowledge to support coach wellbeing in high-performance sport.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Coach Knowledge to Burnout: The Sequential Mediating Roles of Psychological Capital and Coach-Athlete Relationship Quality in Elite Football","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-04 07:06:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8701114/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T15:39:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-23T13:04:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-02T05:08:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-30T14:52:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-01-30T14:29:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7d670e55-0440-4728-94ce-af84e7f89804","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 4th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-24T15:53:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-04 07:06:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8701114","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8701114","identity":"rs-8701114","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}