Conceptual and measurement issues of the complementarity dimension of the coacheathlete relationship across cultures S.X. Yang a, b, * , S. Jowett b a Business School, Sichuan University, China b School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, United Kingdom article info Article history: Received 13 October 2011 Received in revised form 21 May 2013 Accepted 9 June 2013 Available online 29 June 2013 Keywords: Dominant Submissive Behavior Relationship CoacheAthlete abstract Objectives: Grounded in the 3Cs model of the coacheathlete relationship, this multi-study outlined the development of two scales that measure coaches’ dominant behaviors and athletes’ submissive behaviors. Method & results: In study 1, a pool of items was generated based on relevant literatures and interviews. The item pool was then assessed by an expert panel including academics, athletes and coaches. In Study 2 and Study 3, construct and criterion validity, as wells as internal reliability of the refined items were tested with a sample of elite coaches and athletes. Analyses revealed that Coach Dominant Behavior Scale (CDB-S) and Athlete Submissive Behavior Scale (ASB-S) possessed sound psychometric properties. In Study 4, the measurement invariance of the 10-item ASB-S was assessed across gender and five coun- tries: Britain, China, Greece, Spain, and Sweden. Results supported the full structural invariance of the ASB-S. Conclusion: Overall, the items of both CDB-S and ASB-S were found to be psychometrically sound. The discussion highlights the contributions these findings make on both conceptual and measurement levels as well as the opportunities it opens up for research with practical relevance. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The relationship developed between a coach and an athlete has been recognized as an important aspect of effective and successful coaching (e.g., Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Gould, Greenleaf, & Dieffenbach, 2001). This unique two-person relationship has been viewed as an important medium (Jowett, 2005) for performance accomplishments (Gould et al., 2001) and psychological wellbeing (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). While “relationship” is a term whose meaning can be taken for granted because it is so commonly used within the context of sport and coaching, it is important to define it specifically in an attempt to identify both the facets it contains and the processes it involves (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007). In the last decade, various attempts have been made to conceptualize, operationalize, and measure the relationship developed between the coach and the athlete (e.g., Lavoi, 2004; Poczwardowski, Barott, & Peregoy, 2002; Wylleman, 2000). In this paper, the coacheathlete relationship is defined as a situation in which two people’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are mutually and causally interdependent (e.g., Jowett, 2007b; Jowett & Meek, 2000). While this definition supplies a good starting point for un- derstanding the nature of the diverse facets contained (e.g., inter- personal feelings of both the coach and the athlete) and the processes involved in coacheathlete relationships (e.g., the rela- tionship is a state as opposed to a trait), it is only a generic view of the coacheathlete relationship (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007). Thus, defining the coacheathlete relationship in operational terms has helped to capture more concretely its nature. Based on the above conceptual definition, Jowett and colleagues (Jowett, 2006, 2009b; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) operationalized coaches and athletes’ interpersonal feelings through the construct of emotional closeness. Closeness reflects the affective ties that the coach and athlete develop in the course of their relationship, such as liking, trust, appreciation, and respect. Coaches and athletes’ interpersonal thoughts were operationally defined by the construct of commitment. Commitment describes coaches and athletes’ thoughts (intentions) to maintain a lasting athletic partnership that is interdependent. Finally, coaches and athletes’ interpersonal Abbreviations: CDB-S, Coach Dominant Behavior Scale; ASB-S, Athlete Submis- sive Behavior Scale; CART-Q, CoacheAthlete Relationship Questionnaire; CFA, confirmatory factor analysis; CFI, comparative fit index; NNFI, non-normed fit in- dex; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residuals; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation. * Corresponding author. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Lough- borough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. Tel.: þ44 1509 228450; fax: þ44 1509 224321. E-mail address: Sophie2717@hotmail.com (S.X. Yang). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.06.003 Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 830e841