ijems | scientific article
HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoaches
MakeDecisions?
edvard kolar
ScienceandResearchCentre
Koper,Slovenia
edvard.kolar@zrs-kp.si
saša velikovi
UniversityofNiš,Serbia
v.sale70@gmail.com
rado pišot
ScienceandResearchCentre
Koper,Slovenia
rado.pisot@zrs-kp.si
marijo možnik
UniversityofZagreb,Croatia
marijo.moznik@gmail.com
matej tušak
UniversityofLjubljana,Slovenia
matej.tusak@fsp.uni-lj.si
Differentauthorsarguethatcoachingisfundamentallyadecision-making
(hereinafter: dm)process,whilecoaches’ dm hasbeenidentifiedasa
keyelementofacoach’spractice.Inthepresentstudy,weexaminedthe
dm behaviorofSerbiangymnasticscoaches.Thesampleconsistedof53
coaches(age:40.96 ±13.04years).Manifested dm behaviorwasmeasured
duringthenationalcoachingseminarusingtheGeneral dm StyleInven-
tory,whichincludesfive dm stylesdefinedasrational,intuitive,depen-
dent,spontaneousandavoidant dm.Factoranalyseswereperformedto
revealthe dm styles’structure.Pearson’scorrelationcoefficientwasused
toidentifytheassociationbetween dm styles,demographicandprofes-
sionalcharacteristics,and anova wasusedtodetectdifferencesbetween
moreexperiencedandlessexperiencedcoaches.Theresultsshowedthat
coachesuseacombinationofallfive dm styleswhenmakingdecisions,
butmostlyuserationalanddependent dm styles.Basedonthediscov-
eredaveragestructureofthe dm styles,wecanconcludethatSerbian
gymnasticscoachesaremostlyrationaldecision-makerswhoincrease
theirrationalitybyseekingadvice,opinions,andknowledgefromcol-
leagueswhenmakingdecisions.Furthermore,moreexperiencedcoaches
canmakedecisionsmoreindependentlyandalsofasterwhenthesitua-
tionisurgentortime-limited.
KeyWords:Serbiangymnasticscoaches,decision-makingstyles,
structure,demographiccharacteristics,professionalcharacteristics,
experience
©2024EdvardKolar,SašaVelićković,RadoPišot,
MarijoMožnik,andMatejTušak
https://doi.org/10.70908/2232-6022/18.31-52
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1 | 31–52

[32]
EdvardKolaretal.
introduction
Different authorsarguethatcoachingisessentiallyadecision-making
(hereinafter: dm) process (Abraham and Collins 2011, 367; Lyle and
Muir2020,1),withcoaches’ dm identifiedasakeyaspectoftheirprac-
tice(Kaya2014,333;Coutts2017,717;Tilletal.2018,14).Itisconsidered
thehallmarkofanexpertcoach(NashandCollins,2006)andoneofthe
mostimportantskillsacoachmustpossess(PostandvanGelder2023).
dm isadefiningelementofcoachingexpertise(Harveyetal.2015).
Athletes’performance ismainlydetermined bytheirdeveloped ca-
pabilities(knowledge,abilities,characteristics,andmotivation)andef-
fectivetrainingprocessmanagement,thelong-termgoalofwhichisto
transformtheathlete’scapabilitiestomeetthedemandsoftheirsport
(Kolar et al. 2006, 11). Nash and Collins (2006, 467) view coaches as
managersofthetrainingprocess,responsibleforplanning,organizing,
implementing, and evaluating. They coordinate experts and athletes
anddelegatetaskstooptimizethetrainingprocess(Kolaretal.2025,2).
Theaforementionedsetsofthecoach’smanagerialtaskswithinasports
training process represent the substantive aspect of the coach’s role,
whilethebasicmethodoftheirworkismakingdecisions(Abrahamet
al.2006,549;KolarandTušak2022,49;WilsonandKiely2023,2).
dm is a process defined as a choice between options (Heller and
Hindle 2001, 154), influenced by the interplay of two cognitive sys-
tems:System1(intuitive,heuristic)andSystem2(rational,analytical)
(Kahneman 2017, 576). System 1 enables quick, creative decisions, es-
pecially with domain-specific experience (Klein 2015, 164), while Sys-
tem 2ischaracterizedbyslower, more deliberateandconsciousthink-
ing used for complex evaluations and long-term planning (Evans and
Stanovich 2013; Gonzalez-Loureiro and Vlačić 2016; Kahneman 2017).
System2alsoensuresdecisionsalignwithstrategicgoals(Elbannaand
Child2007,445–6;BayoandAkintokunbo2022,58). dm stylesemerge
fromthesefundamentalcognitivestylesandareinfluencedbyperson-
ality,biases,knowledge,andexperience(Harren1979;ScottandBruce
1995).Variousauthorshavedefined dm stylesas(1)hierarchicallysub-
ordinatetothefundamentalcognitivestyles(SpicerandSadler-Smith
2005,146;Kozhevnikov2007,473;Dewberryetal.2013,784;Kolaretal.
2025,2)and(2)manifestingatthedecision-makinglevel. dm stylesare
learnedresponsestospecificsituations,notmutuallyexclusive,andoc-
cur in variouscombinations in individuals (Scott and Bruce 1995). The
General Decision-Making Style Inventory (hereinafter: gdms) is the
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[33]
mostcommonlyusedquestionnaireforassessingthesestyles(Berisha
etal.2018,3;Urietaetal.2021,2).
Coaches are highly trained professionals (experts) with specialized
knowledgeandexperienceintheirsport(LyleandMuir2020,14).Eric-
sson(2018a,3–4)describesanexpertassomeonewhoishighlyskilled
andknowledgeableinaparticularfield,orsomeonewhoiswidelyrec-
ognized as a reliable source of knowledge, techniques, or skills, with
theirjudgmentsbeingacknowledgedasauthoritativebothpubliclyand
bytheirpeers.Ericssonetal.(1993,372)arguethatexpertiseandex-
pertperformancearedevelopedthroughextensiveexperienceinaspe-
cificdomain,whichrequireslong-terminvolvement(atleast10yearsor
10,000 hours) indeliberatepracticeinthatdomain. Kolaretal.(2025,
12)arguethatacoach’sexpertiseisdefinedby(1)yearsofexperience(2)
within a specific domain, and (3) achieving high-level results in inter-
nationalcompetitions.Onlythecoachwhofulfillsallthreecriteriacan
be recognized as an expert, with their decisions – whether long-term
orsudden–beinghighlyvalidandreliable.
ThisstudywillexaminethedmstylesofSerbiangymnasticscoaches,
focusing on (1) the overall dm styles structure and (2) mutual corre-
lations of dm styles, (3) their correlations with coaches’ demographic
and professional characteristics, and (4) differences in the dm styles
usedbetweenmoreandlessexperiencedcoaches.
literature review
Despite the growing recognition of the importance of coaches’ dm in
the training process, which involves adapting or tailoring the coach’s
dm behaviortothespecificorevenuniqueneedsoftheathleteandof
thechosensport(Harveyetal.2015,152),researchinthefieldofsports
coachingtheorystilllacksempiricalinsightsintocoaches’ dm styles.
Therearequiteafewstudiesinwhichtheauthorsdealtmainlywith
theleadershipstylesandbehaviorsofsportscoaches(Chelladuraiand
Arnott1985;Côtéetal.1995;Marshall2006;Kaya2014;Elderton2020;
Jin et al. 2022; Jawoosh et al. 2022) and applied the findings to their
dm behaviorinvarioussituationsandcontexts.Thesestudiesprimar-
ily focus on identifying the coach’s leadership style, particularly how
it influences the level of athlete involvement in decision-making pro-
cesses.
Abraham and Collins (2015, 1) report that there has recently been
an increased interest in using Naturalistic Decision Making (here-
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[34]
EdvardKolaretal.
inafter: ndm) paradigm and the Recognition Primed Decision Mak-
ing (hereinafter: rpd)model to examineand understand the dm of
sport coaches in time-limited situations. The ndm approach (Klein
2008;2015)isanalternativetothenormative,rationalistic dm process
approach, whose main orientation is that decision-makers in natural
settings rely heavily on expert intuition. Bossard et al. (2022, 1), in
their study, note that there is an extensive number of studies where
different authors use the rpd model to explore the dm behavior of
expert coaches (Abraham and Collins 2015; Harvey et al. 2015; Collins
etal.2016;CollinsandCollins2016;Ashfordetal.2020)fromdifferent
sports in natural settings. Findings suggest that coaches have an ini-
tialdesiretoengagein rpd-typebehaviorandhavethecapacitytobe
‘experts’butmaynotusethiscapacityunlessforcedtodoso(Abraham
and Collins 2015, 1). Also, Harvey et al. (2015, 152) stated that ndm
can offer a suitable framework to apply to coaches’ dm behavior and
Collins et al. (2016, 5–6) added that there are considerable variations,
bothbetweencoachesandbetweensports,intheperceivedfrequency
ofintuitivedmuse(rpdmodel).Theyfoundthat,inallcases,coaches
acknowledgedtheneedforcarefulplanningacrossallelementsoftheir
work, where the intuitive aspects of the coaches’ dm emerged differ-
entiallyacrossthemacro(planningstage)andmicro(implementation
stage)processesofthetrainingsession.Moreover,Richardsetal.(2016,
73) argue that the dm process is complex and multifactorial, where a
crucialunderpinningfortheefficientapplicationofthecoach’stactical
knowledgeistheuseofaslow,deliberateandreflectiveexaminationof
theprocess.
In thefield ofthesports trainingprocess, therearecertainlymany
situations in which coaches make decisions consistent with the ndm
paradigmandtheuseofthe rpd model,butasKahnemanandKlein
(2009, 524–5) point out, there are three fundamental conditions for
validintuitivereasoning.Theenvironmentwithinwhichthereasoning
takes place (1) must be orderly, there (2) must be the possibility for
the decision-maker to learn the rules of its orderliness, and (3) there
must be adequate feedback about their thoughts and actions. Only
if all conditions are met at the same time will the associative mem-
ory (stored tacit knowledge or experience) be able to recognize the
circumstances and produce quick and accurate decisions. Introducing
the ndm paradigmandthe rpd modelintosportscoachinghaspro-
vided a deeper understanding of how coaches handle the complexity,
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[35]
crises,anduncertaintyoftraining.Itoffersaframeworkforexplaining
how coaches make decisions in the dynamic, high-pressure moments
ofcoaching.
Abraham and Collins (2011), together with Martindale and Collins
(2007),arguethat,likethe ndm paradigm,theclassic dm model(nor-
mative model, hereafter cdm) also has limitations, and they intro-
ducedtheconceptofprofessionaljudgmentanddm(hereafterpjdm)
asacomprehensivemodelforunderstandingandfacilitatingthecom-
plex behavior of dm in sports coaches. By integrating the principles
of cdm and ndm into pjdm,theauthorssuggestthatcoachesmake
decisions along a continuum from logical and rational options to in-
tuitive, experience-based decision-making. Moreover, Collins et al.
(2016,2)alsodescribedtheconceptofnested dm,whichcanbeunder-
stoodasanapplicationof pjdm tocoaching.Theyarguethathigher-
order/longer-term(strategic)decisionsshouldbetakeninamorecon-
sidered,deliberative(cdm)fashion,whileimmediate,in-session(oper-
ative)decisionsaremoreshort-termandalmostintuitive(morereflec-
tive of an ndm approach). This ‘nesting’ of intuitive, short-term de-
cisions within more deliberate, long-term decisionsis a key feature of
thecoachingprocess,helpingtoalignimmediateactionswithbroader,
long-term goals. The pjdm model, therefore, assumes that the dm
process of coaches, depending on the (1) problem situation and the
(2) goal of the decision, occurs both within System 1 (specific domain
expertintuition)andwithinSystem2(boundedrationalanalyticalpro-
cess).
Thelatentuseofdifferentcognitivestyles(System1and2)usedby
coaches in their dm behavior can be detected through manifest dm
styles that shape the coach’s dm behavior. Manifested dm behavior
was observed and measured with Scott and Bruce’s (1995, 829) gdms
inventory by Giske et al. (2013), who investigated soccer coaches’ dm
styles in relation to elite and non-elite coaching experience and level
of playinghistory. The results of their study show that soccer coaches
mostly use the rational or intuitive dm style and almost no avoidant
dm style,andthatcoacheswithmoreexpertiseinaspecific-domainof
coachingstatistically significantly use more rational andintuitive dm
stylesthannon-experts.Additionally,coacheswithelite-levelplayerex-
periencealsoshowstatisticallysignificantlygreateruseofintuitiveand
rational dm styles than coaches without that experience (Giske et al.
2013, 695). The second study, conducted by Noh et al. (2018) explored
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[36]
EdvardKolaretal.
the relationship between soccer club coaches ‘dm style, basic psycho-
logicalneedsandintentiontocontinueexercising.Thisstudy’sresults
showed that coaches’ rational and intuitive dm styles have a positive
effectontheparticipants’basicpsychologicalneeds,whilecoaches’de-
pendent and avoidant styles have a negative effect on their basic psy-
chological needs. Furthermore, this study also revealed that coaches’
rationalandintuitive dm styleshaveapositiveeffectonsportpartic-
ipants’ intention to continue exercising, while coaches’ avoidant style
hasanegativeeffectontheirintentiontocontinuetoexercise(Nohet
al. 2018, 10). In both studies, the structure of decision-making styles
withinallformedsamples(entire,experts,non-experts...)wasthe
same.Coachesdemonstratethehighestproportionofuseofbothfunc-
tional dm styles(1)rationaland(2)intuitive,followedinorderbythe
so-called non-functional dm styles, (3) dependent, (4) spontaneous,
and(5)avoidant dm style.Theuseoffunctional dm stylesin dm pro-
cesses generally leads to correct and effective decisions, while the in-
creasedpresenceofnon-functionalstylesintheoveralldmstylestruc-
ture of coaches could indicate the risk that their dm behavior often
leadstonegativeresultsandinconsistentdecisions(Mitchelletal.2011,
693–4;FaletičandAvsec2013,133).
Kolar et al. (2025, 8) in their study developed a conceptual frame-
workforcoaches’decisionmakinginconventionalsport(e.g.gymnas-
tics, figure skating) which encompass a wide range of situations that
mayariseduringtrainingandthepotentialapproachesforaddressing
them. This should result in different types of decisions and character-
istic of coaches’ decision-making behavior. The developed conceptual
frameworkforeseesthreetypesofdecisions(strategic,tacticalandop-
erational), each of which should have a different role in the compre-
hensiveprocessofsportstraining.Todefinethetypesofdecisions,the
(1)expectedtimeframeofvalidity,(2)timeimpact,and(3)levelofur-
gency of decisions made were primarily used. The authors point out
thatthesethreetypesofdecisionsshouldhavea(1)distinctroleinthe
comprehensiveprocessofsportstraining,shouldbe(2)carriedouton
thebasisofdifferentcognitiveprocesses,(3)bemanifestedintheforms
ofdifferent dm stylestructuresand(4)beenforcedbyusingdifferent
leadership styles. From this perspective, therefore, each type of deci-
sion identified has its own unique role, significance, and meaning in
managing comprehensivesport trainingprocess.Astheauthors note,
ifweareawareofthelevelofknowledgeandtheamountofexperience
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[37]
ofthecoachesandwefindout(measure)their dm stylestructure,the
conceptual framework provides clear guidance on which coach should
beentrustedwithmanagingathletesduringtrainingandcompetitions
(Kolaretal.2025,11).
methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 53 Serbian gymnastics coaches (age: 40.96 ±
13.04 years), whichrepresents nearly the entire population of Serbian
gymnastics coaches and exceeds the minimum requirement for con-
ductingfactoranalysis(deWinteretal.2009).Theupperagelimitwas
79years,whiletheloweragelimitwas20years.Themostexperienced
coachhad38yearsofexperience,andtheleastexperiencedhad2years
(12.91 ±9.21 years). Thesampleincluded17men(32.1)and36women
(67.9).Participantscompletedthequestionnaireduringthenational
coachingseminarinKostolac(Serbia,August2023).Allsubjectspartic-
ipatedinthestudyvoluntarilyandwithoutanycompensation.
Instrument
The dm style was measured using the gdms (Scott and Bruce 1995),
whichwastranslatedintoSerbian.The gdms questionnairemeasures
five different dm styles: rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and
spontaneous. The questionnaire consists of 25 items (5 for each dm
style) ranging on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly dis-
agree (1) to strongly agree (5). A total score for each of the five dm
styles was obtained by summing the item scores that measured each
dm style,withscoresrangingfrom5to25.The gdms scaleshavepre-
viously demonstrated good psychometric characteristics across differ-
entsamples(managers,students,thegeneralpopulation,militaryoffi-
cers,sportmanagers,sportcoachesandothers)fromvariouscountries
(ScottandBruce1995;Thunholm2004;SpicerandSadler-Smith2005;
Gambetti etal.2008; Curşeu andSchruijer;2012; Avsec2012; Giskeet
al.2013;BavoľárandOrosová2015;Nohetal.2018;Alacreu-Crespoet.
al 2019; Kolar and Tušak 2022). In this study, the alpha coefficients of
thescalesrangedbetween0.472(spontaneous)to0.870(avoidant)(ta-
ble 1). The Cronbach’s alpha for the entire gdms is 0.726, which is a
goodindicatorofinternalconsistency.Thereliabilitycoefficientforthe
spontaneousstylewasdeemedadequate,whileothercoefficientsindi-
catedmoderatetostronginternalconsistency(Taber2018,1278).Gen-
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[38]
EdvardKolaretal.
eralinformationquestionsaboutgender,age,experience,levelofedu-
cation,status,andsuccessofthecoachwerealsoadded.
StatisticalAnalysis
Statistical data processing was carried out using the Statistical Pack-
agefortheSocialSciences29(ibm spss).Thefactoranalysismethod
– Principal Component Factoring (pcf) and varimax rotation of fac-
tors – was used to test the assumption about the structure of dm
styles. Factor extraction was carried out using Kaiser-Guttman’s cri-
terion(Eigenvalue>1)andthescreeplotdiagram(Cattell’sScreeTest)
(Cattell 1966). Before applying the factor analysis (hereinafter: fa),
thedataadequacywastestedwiththeKeiser-Meyer-OlkinMeasureof
Sampling Adequacy (kmo) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Values of
the kmo test above 0.6 indicatethatthe analyzed data is suitable for
the use of fa (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Bartlett’s test must show
significantdifferencesatariskleveloflessthan5(p<0.05),indicating
thatthecorrelationmatrixisnotuniformandthattheobservedvari-
ablesarerelatedtosomeextent.Theinternalconsistencyoftheoverall
scale and subscales was measured using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to identify the association
between dm styles, demographic and professional characteristics of
thesample,and anova wasusedtodetectdifferencesbetweenmore
experiencedandlessexperiencedcoaches.
results
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for five dm styles. The average
values of the individual dm style use (Mean/Value) were calculated
fromthescoresdedicatedtoitemsassignedtoanindividual dm style
(Scott and Bruce 1995). The average share of the individual dm style
use (Mean/ of maximum) in relation to the maximum possible total
value of the sum of items of the individual dm style (maximum = 25)
wasalsocalculatedforeach dm style.
Thestructureofthedmstyles(table1)revealedthatSerbiancoaches,
onaverage,mostoftenusetherationalanddependent dmstyles.These
are followed by the intuitive and spontaneous dm styles, whereas
coaches are least likely to use the avoidant dm style. Similar results
on the structure of dm styles in different samples were also found
by other authors (Scott and Bruce 1995; Giske et al. 2013; Ghazi and
Hu 2016; Krasniqi et al. 2019; Noh et al. 2018; Kolar and Tušak 2022).
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[39]
table 1 DescriptiveStatisticsandInternalConsistencyof dm Styles
dmStyles N Min Max Mean sd Skew. Kurt. α
Value 
dmsr    . . . –. . .
dmsi    . . . . . .
dmsd    . . . –. . .
dmsa    . . . . . .
dmss    . . . . –. .
notes dmsr–rationalstyle,dmsi–intuitivestyle,dmsd–dependentstyle,dmsa–avoidant
style,dmss–spontaneousstyle.
table 2 TheKaiser-Meyer-Olkin(kmo)TestandBartlett’sTestofSphericity
Kaiser-Meyer-OlkinMeasureofSamplingAdequacy .
Bartlett’sTestofSphericity Approx.χ
2
.
df .
Sig. .
The average structure of dm styles also reveals that Serbian coaches
achieveasignificantlyhighproportion ofuseoftherational dm style
(87.3), as well as high proportions of use of the dependent (71.2)
and intuitive (65.8) dm styles, while the spontaneous style is used
occasionally (51.2) and the avoidant style is mostly not used (38.1)
inthetrainingprocess.
Before applying fa, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (kmo) test and Bart-
lett’stestofsphericity(table2)werecarriedouttoevaluatethefactora-
bility.The kmo measureofsamplingadequacywas0.639(therequired
minimumisabove0.6)andthesignificanceofBartlett’stestofspheric-
itywas0.000( p<0.01).Theresultsofbothtestsshowthatthestudied
sampleissuitableforperforming fa.
The structure of the decision-making styles of Serbian gymnastics
coacheswasverifiedby fa usingthemethodofprincipalcomponents
with varimax rotation (table 3). The fa procedure based on Kaiser-
Guttman’s criterion extracted six (6) factors, which cumulatively ex-
plain67.820ofthetotalvariance.Table3alsoshowsascreeplotdia-
gramwiththefactoreigenvaluecurvebendingatthefifthfactor,indi-
catingthatafive-factorsolutioncorrespondstothe gdms modeland
couldalsobeconsideredavalidresultofthefa(ScottandBruce1995;
SpicerandSadler-Smith2005).Thus,therotatedsolutionwithfivefac-
torsexplains62.957ofthetotalvarianceoftheobservedvariables.
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[40]
EdvardKolaretal.
table 3 faofthegdmsInventoryandScreePlotDiagram
(a) (b) (c) (d)
() () () () () () () () ()
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . . .
 . ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
        
notes Columnheadingsareasfollows:(a)componen t,(b)initialeigenvalues,(c)extractionsums
ofsquaredloadings,(d)rotationsumsofsquaredloadings,(1)total,(2)percentageofvariance,(3)
cumulativepercentage.
Table 4 shows the factor structure and factor loadings of the items
includedin the gdms inventory. The first factor is associated with all
fiveitems measuring theavoidantstyleandtwoitemsfromthespon-
taneousdmstyle(dmss4anddmss2).Theprojectionsofavoidant
style items on the first factor are high (factor loadings from 0.700 to
0.816),whiletheprojectionofthespontaneous dm styleitemsonthe
samefactorisverylow(0.472,0.382).Therefore,thefirstfactorcanbe
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[41]
table 4 FactorStructureandFactorLoadingsofthe25Itemsofthe gdms
Inventory
Items Component

dmsa .
dmsa .
dmsa .
dmsa .
dmsa .
dmss .
dmss .
dmsr .
dmsr .
dmsr .
dmsr .
dmsr .
dmsd .
dmsd .
dmsd .
dmsd .
dmsd .
dmsi .
dmsi .
dmsi .
dmsi .
dmss .
dmss .
dmss .
dmsi .
notes dmsa1–5–avoidantstyleitems, dmsr1–5–rationalstyleitems, dmsd1–5–dependent
styleitems,dmsi1–5–intuitivestyleitems,dmss1–5–spontaneousstyleitems.
namedthe‘avoidantstyle’,explaining16.499ofthetotalvarianceof
therotatedsolution(table3).Itcanbeobservedthatalltheitemsmea-
suringarationaldmstyle(dmsr1todmsr5)arerelatedtothesecond
factor(factorloadingsfrom0.413to0.837).Thisfactorexplains13.726
ofthetotalvarianceoftherotatedsolution(table3)andcanbenamed
the‘rationalstyle’.Thethirdfactorisexplainedwithfivedependentdm
stylevariables(dmsd1 to dmsd5)withfactorloadingsfrom0.531to
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[42]
EdvardKolaretal.
0.818. The third factor explains 12.113 of the total variance (table 3)
and can be named the ‘dependent style’. The fourth factor (table 4) is
explained by four items measuring the intuitive dm style (dmsi1, 2,
4and5)withfactorloadingsfrom0.730to0.783.Thefourthfactorex-
plains11.549ofthetotalvarianceoftherotatedsolution(table3)and
canbenamed the‘intuitivestyle’.The fifth factorisexplainedbyonly
threeitems,belongingtothespontaneousdmstyle(dmss1,3and5)
with factor loadings 0.518 and 0.779. The fifth factor explains 9.070
ofthetotalvarianceoftherotatedsolution(table3)andcanbenamed
the ‘spontaneous style’. The sixth factor of the rotated solution is ex-
plainedbyonlyonevariablefromtheintuitive dm style(dmsi3),with
afactorloadingof0.643,explaining4.862ofthetotalvariance(table
3).Thisvariablewasdistributedoutsidethepredicted dm styles.Since
thescreeplotdiagramsuggests afive-factorsolution (table3)andthe
sixthfactorisdefinedbyonlyonevariable(table4),wewillexcludethis
factorfromfurtheranalysis.
Regardless of the clarity of the five-factor structure model, which
is consistent with the original gdms model from Scott and Bruce
(1995), some variables are nevertheless distributed outside the pre-
dicted dm styles. The obtained factor model shows a good stability
for the avoidant, rational and dependent dm styles in terms of the
included items. The stability of intuitive dm style is relatively good,
whilethespontaneousstylescaleprovedtobeveryunstableandprob-
lematic. However, it should be noted that, even in the original paper
by Scott and Bruce (1995), the spontaneous style was added at a later
stage,andtheitemsandquestionsaresomehowambiguous.Theitems,
whichinthepresentedstudy(table4)werenotprojectedontothefac-
tors in accordance with the original model, are dmss2 (‘I often make
decisions on the spur of the moment’), dmss4 (‘I often make impul-
sivedecisions’),and dmsi3 (‘Igenerallymakedecisionsthatfeelright
tome’).
Someotherauthorshavealsofacedasimilarproblemwiththesame
variables on different samples (Baiocco et al. 2009; Reyna et al. 2014;
Fischer et al. 2015; del Campo et al. 2016; Kolar and Tušak 2022). The
variables that were not distributed among the factors in accordance
with the intended model were named ‘problematic items’ and due to
missingcontentvalidityorambiguity,theywereexcludedfromfuture
considerationsintheirresearch.Basedonthat,wewillalso,inthecon-
tinuation of the present study, remove the mentioned variables from
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[43]
thestructureofthe dm stylesofSerbiangymnasticscoachesandcon-
siderthe dm stylestructurewith22items.
Inthecontinuationoftheinvestigationofthecharacteristicsofthe
dmbehaviorofSerbiancoaches,weexaminedtheconnectionsbetween
the extracted dm styles and also the connections of these styles with
somedemographicandprofessionalcharacteristicsoftheselectedsam-
ple.Table5showsthatrationalandavoidant dm stylesarenegatively
statisticallycorrelatedata1levelrisk,whichisinlinewiththefind-
ingsofotherauthors(ScottinBruce1995,830;SpicerandSadler-Smith
2005,141;Baioccoetal.2009,968;FaletičandAvsec2013,138;Haririet
al.2014,293).Thistypeofconnectionbetweenthesetwostyleswasalso
expected,sincetherational dm styledependsonthedecision-makers
fullyfollowingtherulesandproceduresinthejudgmentprocess,with
the aim of making the best possible decision, while the avoidant dm
styleischaracterizedbythefactthatthedecisionmakeravoidsthede-
cision,isnotcapableofrelevantjudgmentandmanifestsitselfmainly
in indecisive behavior. A statistically significant positive association
at a 1 risk level was also found between the intuitive and sponta-
neous dm styles. Similar conclusions were also reached by other au-
thors (ScottandBruce1995;Thunholm2004; SpicerandSadler-Smith
2005;Baioccoetal.2009;CurşeuandSchruijer2012;FaletičandAvsec
2013; Reyna et. al. 2014; Hariri et al. 2014; Bavoľár and Orosová 2015;
Berishaetal.2018).Thesefindingsalignwithourexpectations,asboth
intuitiveandspontaneousdecision-makingstylesarelinkedatalatent
leveltotheintuitive-experientialcognitivestyle(Alacreu-Crespoetal.
2019), whichdefines themanifestation ofthese styles. The analysisof
associations between individual styles also showed a statistically sig-
nificant positive correlation at a 5 risk level between dependent and
avoidant dm styles, which requires caution and is addressed and ex-
plainedinthediscussionsection.
Table 5 also shows that the age, experience, status, and success of
coachesareallpositivelycorrelatedata1significancelevel.Thissug-
gests that more experienced coaches are also older, achieve better re-
sultswiththeirathletes,andholdhigherpositionswithinthenational
coaching hierarchy. This fact may also indicate a positive human re-
source strategy within the coaching organization in Serbian gymnas-
tics.Anexaminationofstatisticallysignificantassociationsatdifferent
risk levels(table 5)of demographic andprofessional characteristics of
coaches with dm styles shows that female coaches (Faletič and Avsec
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[44]
EdvardKolaretal.
table 5 Correlationsbetweenthe dm Styles,DemographicsandProfessional
Characteristics
I t e m  
Gender
Age .
Exper. . .***
Educat. . . .
Status . .** .***.
Success . . .** . .***
dmsr . . . . . .
dmsi . . . . . . .
dmsd . . .** . . . . .
dmsa . . . . . . .***. .**
dmss .** .* .** . . . . .***. .
notes *Correlationissignificantatthe0.10level(2-tailed),**correlationissignificantatthe0.05
level(2-tailed),***correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed).
2013,139;BayramandAydemir2017,911),older(FaletičandAvsec2013,
139; Bulog 2016, 399) and more experienced coaches are on average
more spontaneous in dm, while younger coaches tend to be more de-
pendentdecision-makers.
Theanalysisoftheconnectionsbetweenthemeasuredvariablesre-
vealed that the experience of the coaches is the parameter that forms
the largest number of statistically significant connections with the
other measured parameters. We can also assume that experience is
the statistical source of some other connections. For this reason, we
dividedthesampleofcoachesintotwogroupsbasedonthenumberof
years of coaching experience and analyzed whether there are any dif-
ferencesbetweenthegroupsformedinthiswayintheothermeasured
parameters. Thus, coaches with ten (10) or fewer years of experience
were included in the group of less experienced coaches, while those
with more than 10 years of experience were classified as more experi-
encedcoaches(Ericsson2018b,746,Kolaretal.2025,12).
Analysisofthedifferencesbetweenmoreandlessexperiencedcoach-
es (figure 1) shows thatmore experienced coaches are statisticallysig-
nificantlyolder(p=0.000)andhaveastatisticallysignificantlyhigher
coaching status (p = 0.022). An examination of the differences in the
structureof dm stylesbetweenthetwogroupsrevealsthatmoreexpe-
riencedcoachesarestatisticallymorelikelytobespontaneousdecision-
makers (p=0.083)whilelessexperiencedcoachestendtobemorede-
pendentdecision-makers(p=0.006).Similarresultswerealsoobtained
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[45]
Gender(p=.)
.
.
Age(p=.***)
.
.
Education(p=.)
.
.
Status(p=.**)
.
.
Success(p=.)
.
.
dmsr(p=.)
.
.
dmsi(p=.)
.
.
dmsd(p=.***)
.
.
dmsa(p=.)
.
.
dmss(p=.*)
.
.
figure 1 AnalysisofdifferencesbetweenMoreandLessExperiencedCoaches
notes Dark–lessexperience,light–moreexperience;*correlationissignificantatthe0.10level
(2-tailed),**correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2-tailed),***correlationissignificantatthe
0.01level(2-tailed).
intheresearchonthedecision-makingstylesoffootballcoaches(Giske
etal.2013),butthedifferencesinthisstudywerenotsignificant.
discussion
The dm stylerefers tohowanindividualgathers,interprets, anduses
information to make decisions. Thunholm (2004) defined it as a re-
sponse pattern demonstrated when confronted with a decision. dm
styles significantly impact a coach’s performance, which in turn af-
fectsathleteoutcomes(Kolaretal.2025,12).AsRoweandBoulgarides
(1992)noted,dmstylesareessentialforeffectivedmandshouldbeas-
sessed.
This study found that Serbian gymnastics coaches employ a com-
bination of all five dm styles, with rational and dependent styles
being the most common, indicating that they are primarily rational
decision-makers.Rationaldecision-makerscriticallyevaluateevidence
and follow a structured, time-consuming process before making deci-
sions(Fitzgeraldetal.2017).Interestingly,thedependentstyle,which
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[46]
EdvardKolaretal.
is less prevalent in other coaching studies (Giske et al. 2013; Noh et
al. 2018), was the second most frequently used. Alacreu-Crespo et al.
(2019) found that dependent decision-makers seek emotional and in-
strumentalsupport(e.g.,moralsupport,advice,helpandinformation
fromothers),relyingonotherstoincreasetherationalityoftheirdeci-
sions(Vroom2003;Khasawnehetal.2011).Thisalignswiththetheory
ofextendedrationality(Secchi2010 ),wherecoachesreducelimitations
ininformationprocessingbyconsultingothers(Simon1976).
However,thecorrelationanalysis(table5)revealedasignificantpos-
itiverelationshipbetweenthedependentandavoidant dm styles.This
combination,referredtoasadependent-avoidantdmstyle,canbeseen
asdysfunctional(FaletičandAvsec2013,133;Fischeretal.2015,525),as
suchindividualsareeitherunableorunwillingtoacceptresponsibility
fordecisionsandtendtoavoid dm,shiftingresponsibilityontoothers
(ScottandBruce1995;Harren1979).
Experiencelevelalsoimpactsdmstyles(figure1).Moreexperienced
coachestendtobeolder,havehighernationalcoachingstatus,andare
less likely to rely on the dependent style compared to their less expe-
rienced counterparts. Phillips et al. (1984, 497) found that decision-
makers with a dominant dependent style tend to lack confidence and
seekconfirmationfromothers.Lessexperiencedcoaches(figure1),of-
ten with lower status in the national coaching hierarchies, are more
likelytousethedependentstyleduetotheirlimitedauthoritytomake
independentdecisionsandlessdomain-specificknowledge(Kahneman
andKlein2009).
Additionally, more experienced coaches tend to be more sponta-
neousdecision-makers. Kolaretal.(2025, 10) notedthatspontaneous
decisionstypicallyariseduringoperational-typedecisionsinthetrain-
ing process and are often driven by a coach’s gut feeling (System 1),
coupled with the urgency to act quickly. These decisions can also be
understood in accordance with Thunholm’s (2004, 941) definition as
a high-speed, intuitive dm style decision, used in dm situations that
areundertimepressure.Thesedecisionsareessentialinunpredictable
situations and are valid only when made by experienced coaches who
possess sufficient tacit knowledge, acquired ina specific domain envi-
ronment,andhavelearnedtherulesofthatdomainthroughfrequent
andaccuratefeedback(KahnemanandKlein2009,524–5).Incontrast,
novicecoachesmayrelyonguessworkorbeinfluencedbycognitivebi-
ases,whichmakestheirdecisionslessreliable(Kolaretal.2025).There-
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[47]
fore,thefrequentuseofthespontaneous dm styleamongexperienced
coacheswasbothexpectedandappropriate.
conclusion
Based on the average structure of the dm styles discovered in this
study, we can conclude that Serbian gymnastics coaches are primarily
rational decision-makers who enhance their rationality by consulting
with colleagues for advice, opinions, and knowledge when making de-
cisions, and that more experienced coaches can make decisions more
independently and also faster when the situation is urgent or time-
limited. The findings of this research support the theoretical frame-
work ofcoaches’ dm inconventional sports, developed byKolaretal.
(2025), andcontribute to abetterunderstanding oftheimportanceof
coaches’ dm and knowledgeexpansion. However, the study has some
limitations,mostlyrelatedtotherelativelysmallsampledrawnfroma
single cultural environment. Therefore, future research in this field is
needed.
references
Abraham,A.,andD.Collins.2011.‘TakingtheNextStep:Waysforward
forCoachingScience.’Quest63:366–84.
Abraham, A., and D. Collins. 2015. ‘Professional Judgement and Deci-
sion Making in Sport Coaching: To Jump or Not to Jump.’ Paper
presentedattheInternationalConferenceonNaturalistic Decision
Making,9–12June,McLean, va.
Abraham, A.,D.Collins,and R.Martindale. 2006. ‘TheCoaching Sche-
matic:ValidationthroughExpertCoachConsensus.’JournalofSports
Sciences24(6):549–64.
Alacreu-Crespo, A., M. C. Fuentes, D. Abad-Tortosa, I. Cano-Lopez, E.
Gonzalez, and M. A. Serrano. 2019. ‘Spanish Validation of General
Decision-Making Style Scale: Sex Invariance, Sex Differences and
RelationshipwithPersonalityandCopingStyle.’JudgmentandDeci-
sionMaking14(6):739–51.
Ashford,M.,A.Abraham,andJ.Poolton.2020.‘ACommunalLanguage
for Decision Making in Team Invasion Sports.’ International Sport
CoachingJournal8(1):122–9.
Avsec,A.2012.‘DoEmotionallyIntelligentIndividualsUseMoreAdap-
tiveDecision-MakingStyles?’StudiaPsychologica54(3):209–19.
Baiocco, R., F. Laghi, and M. D’Alessio. 2009. ‘Decision-Making Style
amongAdolescents:RelationshipwithSensationSeekingandLocus
ofControl.’JournalofAdolescence32:963–76.
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[48]
EdvardKolaretal.
Bavoľár,J.,andO.Orosová.2015.‘Decision-MakingStylesandTheirAs-
sociationswithDecision-MakingCompetenciesandMentalHealth.’
JudgmentandDecisionMaking10(1):115–22.
Bayo,P .L.,andO.O.Akintokunbo.2022.‘StrategicDecisionMaking:
ProcessandAidtoBetterDecisionMakinginOrganizations:ALiter-
atureReviewApproach.’InternationalJournalofEconomicsandBusi-
nessManagement8(1):56–62.
Bayram, N., and M. Aydemir. 2017. ‘Decision-Making Styles and Per-
sonality Traits.’ International Journal of Recent Advances in Organi-
zationalBehaviourandDecisionSciences3(1):905–15.
Berisha,G.,J.S.Pula,andB.Krasniqi.2018.‘ConvergentValidityofTwo
DecisionMakingStyleMeasures.’JournalofDynamicDecisionMak-
ing4(1):1–8.
Bossard,C.,T.Kérivel,S.Dugény,P .Bagot,T.Fontaine,andG.Ker-
marrec. 2022. ‘Naturalistic Decision-Making in Sport: How Cur-
rent Advances into Recognition Primed Decision Model Offer In-
sightsforFutureResearchinSportSettings?’FrontiersinPsychology
13:936140.
Bulog,I.2016.‘TheInfluenceofTopManagementDemographicCharac-
teristics on Decision Making Approaches.’ Ekonomskivjesnik 29 (2):
393–403.
Chelladurai,P.,andM.Arnott.1985.‘DecisionStylesinCoaching:Pref-
erences of Basketball Players.’ Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport56(1):15–24.
Cattell,R.1966.‘TheScreeTestfortheNumberofFactors.’ Multivariate
BehavioralResearch1:245–76.
Collins,L.,andD.Collins.2016.‘ProfessionalJudgementandDecision-
Making in Adventure Sports Coaching: The Role of Interaction.’
JournalofSportsScience34:1231–9.
Collins, D., L. Collins, and H. J. Carson. 2016. ‘If It Feels Right, Do It:
IntuitiveDecisionMakinginaSampleofHigh-LevelSportCoaches.’
FrontiersinPsychology7:504.
Côté,J.,J.Salmela,P .Trudel,A.Baria,andS.Russell.1995.‘TheCoach-
ingModel:AGroundedAssessmentofExpertGymnasticsCoaches’
Knowledge.’JournalofSportandExercisePsychology 17:1–17.
Coutts,A.J.2017.‘ChallengesinDeve lopingEvidence-BasedPracticein
High-Performance Sport.’ InternationalJournal of Sports Physiology
andPerformance12:717–18.
Curşeu,P .L.,andS.G.L.Schruijer.2012.‘DecisionStyleandRatio-
nality: An Analysis of Predictive Validity of the General Decision-
MakingStyleInventory.’EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement
72(6):1053–62.
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[49]
deWinter,J .C.F .,D.Dodou,andP .A.Wieringa.2009.‘Exploratory
FactorAnalysiswithSmallSampleSizes.’MultivariateBehavioralRe-
search44(2):147–81.
delCampo,C.,S.Pauser,E.Steiner,andR.Vetschera.2016.‘Decision
MakingStylesandtheUseofHeuristicsinDecisionMaking.’Journal
ofBusinessEconomics86(4):389–412.
Dewberry,C.,M.JuanchichandS.Narendran.2013.‘Decision-Making
CompetenceinEverydayLife:TheRolesofGeneralCognitiveStyles,
Decision-Making Styles and Personality.’ Personality and Individual
Differences55:783–8.
Elbanna,S.,andJ.Child.2007.‘InfluencesonStrategicDecisionEffec-
tiveness: Development and Test of an Integrative Model.’ Strategic
ManagementJournal28:431–53.
Elderon, W. 2020. ‘Learner-Centred Coaching.’ Acecoach, 21 January.
https://acecoach.com/learner-centred-coaching/
Ericsson, A. K. 2018a. ‘An Introduction to the Second Edition of The
CambridgeHandbookofExpertiseandExpertPerformance:ItsDe-
velopment,Organization andContent.’InTheCambridgeHandbook
ofExpertiseandExpert Performance, edited by K. A. Ericsson, R. R.
Hoffman, A, Kozbelt, and A. M. Williams. Cambridge University
Press.
Ericsson,A.K.2018b.‘TheDifferentialInfluenceonExperience,Prac-
ticeandDeliberatePracticeonDevelopmentofSuperiorIndividual
PerformanceofExperts.’InTheCambridgeHandbookofExpertiseand
ExpertPerformance,editedbyK.A.Ericsson,R.R.Hoffman,A,Koz-
belt,andA.M.Williams.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ericsson,A.K.,R.T.Krampe,andC.Tesch-Romer.1993.‘TheRoleof
Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance.’ Psy-
chologicalReview 100(3):363–406.
Evans, J. S. B. T., and K. E. Stanovich. 2013. ‘Dual-Process Theories of
HigherCognition:AdvancingtheDebate.’Perspectives on Psycholog-
icalScience8(3):223–41.
Faletič, L., and A. Avsec. 2013. ‘Stili odločanja kot napovedniki psi-
hičnegablagostanja.’Anthropos45(3–4):129–49.
Fischer,S.,K.Soyez,andS.Gurtner.2015.‘AdaptingScottandBruce’s
GeneralDecision-MakingStyleInventorytoPatientDecisionMak-
inginProviderChoice.’MedicalDecisionMaking35(4):525–32.
Fitzgerald,D.R.,S.Mohammed,andG.O.Kremer.2017.‘Differencesin
the Way We Decide: The Effect of Decision Style Diversity on Pro-
cessConflictinDesignTeams.’PersonalityandIndividualDifferences
104:339–44.
Gambetti,E.,M.Fabbri,L.Bensi,andL.Tonetti.2008.‘Acontribution
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[50]
EdvardKolaretal.
to the Italian validation of General Decision-Style Inventory.’ Per-
sonalityandIndividualDifferences44(4):842–52.
Ghazi,A.M.A.,andW.Hu.2016.‘ImpactofIndividualDecision-Making
Styles on Marketing Information System Based Decision-Making:
An Empirical Study of Saudi Arabia Manufacturing Firms.’ Journal
ofInternationalBusinessResearchandMarketing1(3):27–39.
Giske,R.,B.Benestad,K.Haraldstad,andR.Høigaard.2013.‘Decision-
Making Styles among Norwegian Soccer Coaches: An Analysis of
Decision-Making Style in Relation to Elite and Non-Elite Coaching
and Level of PlayingHistory.’ InternationalJournalofSportsScience
andCoaching8(4):689–701.
Gonzalez-Loureiro,M.,andB.Vlačić.2016.‘InternationalBusinessDe-
cisions and Manager’s Cognitive Style: Opening up Research Av-
enuesfromCognitiveBehavioralStrategy.’RevistaEletrônicaGestão
andSociedade10(27):1501–22.
Hariri, H., R. Monypenny, and M. Prideaux. 2014. ‘Leadership Styles
andDecision-MakingStylesinanIndonesianSchoolContext.’School
LeadershipandManagement34(3):284–98.
Harren,V.A.1979.‘AModelofCareerDecision-MakingforCollegeStu-
dents.’JournalofVocationalBehavior14:119–33.
Harvey, S., J. Lyle, and B. Muir. 2015. ‘Naturalistic Decision Making in
HighPerformanceTeamSportCoaching.’InternationalSportCoach-
ingJournal2:152–68.
Heller, R., and T. Hindle. 2001. Veliki poslovnipriročnik. Mladinska kn-
jiga.
Jawoosh,H.N.,H.A.Alshukri,M.H.Kzar,M.N.Kizar,M.A.A.Ameer,
andM.R.A.Razak.2022.‘AnalysisofCoaches’LeadershipStyleand
Its Impact on Athletes’ Satisfaction in University Football Teams.’
InternationalJournalofHumanMovementandSportsSciences10(6):
1115–25.
Jin,H.,S.Kim,A.Love,Y .Jin,andJ .Zhao.2022.‘EffectsofLead-
ership Style on Coach-Athlete Relationship, Athletes’ Motivations,
andAthleteSatisfaction.’FrontiersinPsychology13:1012953.
Kahneman,D.2017. Razmišljanje,hitroinpočasno.umco.
Kahneman,D.,andG.Klein.2009.‘Co nditionforIntu6itiveExpertise:
AFailuretoDisagree.’AmericanPsychologist64(6):515–26.
Kaya,A.2014.‘DecisionMakingbyCoachesandAthletesinSport.’ Pro-
cedia:SocialandBehavioralSciences152:333–8.
Khasawneh, S., A. Alomati, and A. Abu-Tineh. 2011. ‘Decision-Making
Styles of Department Chairs at Public Jordanian Universities: A
High-ExpectancyWorkforce.’TertiaryEducationandManagement17
(4):309–18.
ijems

HowDoSerbianGymnasticsCoachesMakeDecisions?
[51]
Klein,G.2008.‘NaturalisticDecisionMaking.’ TheJournaloftheHuman
FactorsandErgonomicsSociety50(3):456–60.
Klein, G. 2015. ‘A Naturalistic Decision-Making Perspective on Study-
ingIntuitiveDecisionMaking.’JournalofAppliedResearchinMemory
andCognition4:164–8.
Kolar,E.,andM.Tušak.2022.‘TheDecision-MakingStyleStructureof
SlovenianSportManagers.’AnnalesKinesiologiae13(1):47–73.
Kolar,E.,M.Kovač,andS.Piletič.2006.‘Ravnanjesšportnikivkonven-
cionalnihšportnihpanogah.’InGimnastikazatrenerjeinpedagoge2,
editedbyE.KolarandS.Piletič.GimnastičnazvezaSlovenije.
Kolar,E.,R.Biloslavo,R.Pišot,S.Veličković,andM.Tušak.2025.‘Con-
ceptual Framework of Coaches’ Decision-Making in Conventional
Sports.’FrontiersinPsychology15:1498186.
Kozhevnikov,M.2007.‘CognitiveStylesintheContextofModernPsy-
chology: Toward an Integrated Framework of Cognitive Style.’ Psy-
chologicalBulletin133(3):464–81.
Krasniqi,B.A.,G.Berisha,andJ.S.Pula.2019.‘DoesDecision-Making
Style Predict Managers’ Entrepreneurial Intentions?’ Journal of
GlobalEntrepreneurshipResearch9(68):1–15.
Lyle,J .W .B.,andB.Muir.2020.‘Coaches’DecisionMaking.’In The
RoutledgeInternationalEncyclopediaofSportandExercisePsychology.
Routledge.
Marshall,M.K.2006.‘TheCriticalFactorsofCoachingPracticeLeading
toSuccessfulCoachingOutcomes.’PhDdiss.,AntiochUniversity.
Martindale, A., and D. Collins. 2007. ‘Enhancing the Evaluation of Ef-
fectivenesswithProfessionalJudgementandDecisionMaking.’The
SportPsychologist21:458–74.
Mitchell,J.R.,D.A.Shepherd,andM.P.Sharfman.2011.‘ErraticStrate-
gicDecisions:WhenandWhyManagersareInconsistentinStrate-
gicDecisionMaking.’StrategicManagementJournal32:683–704.
Nash, C., and D. Collins. 2006. ‘Tacit Knowledge in Expert Coaching:
ScienceorArt?’Quest58:464–76.
Noh,Y.K.,K.Lee,andC.H.Bum.2018.‘TheRelationshipbetweenSoc-
cerClubCoaches’Decision-MakingStyle,BasicPsychologicalNeeds,
andIntentiontoContinuetoExercise:BasedonAmateurMaleSoc-
cerClubMembersinKorea.’SocialScience7(1):200.
Phillips,S.D.,N.J.Pazienza,andH.H.Ferrin.1984.‘Decision-Making
Styles and Problem-Solving Appraisal.’ Journal of Counselling Psy-
chology31(4):497–502.
Post, G., and T. van Gelder. 2023. ‘Seven Kinds of Decisions Sports
Coaches Make.’Strategies:AJournalforPhysicalandSportEducators
36(5):24–36.
volume 18 | 2025 | number 1

[52]
EdvardKolaretal.
Reyna,C.,M.V .Ortiz,andR.G.Revilla.2014.‘ExploratoryStructural
Equation Modelling of General Decision-Making Style Inventory.’
RevistadePsicologia23(1):33–9.
Richards,P.,D.Collins,andD.R.Mascarenhas.2016.‘DevelopingTeam
Decision-Making:AHolistic Framework Integrating Both On-Field
and Off-Field Pedagogical Coaching Processes.’ Sports CoachingRe-
view6:57–75.
Rowe, A. J., and J. D. Boulgarides. 1992.ManagerialDecisionMaking:A
GuidetoSuccessfulBusinessDecisions.McMillan.
Scott, S. G., and R. A. Bruce. 1995. ‘Decision-Making Style: The Devel-
opmentandAssessmentofaNewMeasure.’EducationalandPsycho-
logicalMeasurement55(5):818–31.
Secchi,D.2010. ExtendableRationality:UnderstandingDecisionMakingin
Organizations.Springer.
Simon, H. A. 1976. ‘From Substantive to Procedural Rationality.’ In
MethodandAppraisalinEconomics,editedbyS.J.Latsis.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Spicer,D.P.,andE.Sadler-Smith.2005.‘AnExaminationoftheGeneral
Decision-Making StyleQuestionnaire in Two uk Samples.’ Journal
ofManagerialPsychology20(2):137–49.
Urieta,P .,A.Aluja,L.F.Garcia,F.Balada,andE.Lacomba.2021.‘Deci-
sion-MakingandtheAlternativeFiveFactorPersonalityModel:Ex-
ploringtheRoleofPersonalityTraits,Age,SexandSocialPosition.’
FrontiersinPsychology12:717705.
Tabachnick,B.G.,andL.S.Fidell.2007. UsingMultivariateStatistics.5th
ed.PearsonEducation.
Taber, K. S. 2018. ‘The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and
Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education.’ Researchin
ScienceEducation48:1273–96.
Thunholm,P. 2004. ‘Decision-MakingStyle:Habit, Styleor Both?’ Per-
sonalityandIndividualDifferences36:931–44.
Till,K.A.,R.Muir,A.Abraham,D.Piggott,andJ.Tee.2019.‘AFrame-
workforDecision-MakingwithinStrengthandConditioningCoach-
ing.’StrengthandConditioningJournal41(1):14–26.
Vroom,V.H.2003.‘EducatingManagersforDecision-MakingandLead-
ership.’ManagementDecision41(10):968–78.
Wilson, P. J., and J. Kiely. 2023. ‘Developing Decision-Making Exper-
tiseinProfessionalSportsStaff:WhatWeCanLearnfromtheGood
JudgementProject.’SportsMedOpen9(1):100.
ijems