Barriers and enablers of a formal coach development program: a multi-perspective process evaluation

Background: Formal coach development programs (CDPs) are central to national sports accreditation systems, yet little is known about the implementation fidelity of introductory, policy-based coaching courses. Although such programs follow standardized curricula, variations in delivery and reception are common, shaped by educators’ interpretations, differing levels of implementation preparedness, logistical constraints, and the diverse backgrounds of coach learners.

Purpose: This study applied the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity (Carroll et al. 2007. “A Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity.” Implementation Science 2 (1): 1–9) to examine a nationwide introductory formal CDP delivered within a national ice hockey association. It investigated educators’ self-reported engagement with and adherence with the program protocol, and on perceived barriers and enablers as experienced by both educators and coach learners. The study also considered how fidelity frameworks capture implementation realities in structured yet context-sensitive to coach education settings.

Methods: A process evaluation with a partial mixed methods design was used to investigate delivery across four geographical regions (i.e. north, south, east, west) within the national ice hockey association. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via self-report checklists and semi-structured interviews with educators (N = 8) and coaches (N = 11). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data using a codebook thematic analysis.

Results: Checklist findings indicated protocol adherence and active coach engagement in general, although some coaches had difficulties understanding elements of the content. However, some educators reported that they did not cover all their assigned materials due to content–and time-related deviations. Qualitative findings expanded on these results, identifying key implementation-related barriers (e.g. limited content individualization, time constraints on delivery) and enablers (e.g. collaborative peer learning, balancing fidelity of form and function).

Conclusion: This study addresses a recognized gap by evaluating the implementation process of a formal CDP, emphasizing the importance of understanding factors that hinder or support fidelity and participant engagement. The findings provide practical insights for enhancing educator preparation, increasing program adaptability to coach learners’ needs, and supporting implementation fidelity in future formal CDPs. Impact statement By integrating the perspectives of both educators and coach learners, this study offers a nuanced understanding of the barriers and enablers of participating in a national formal CDP. The findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and program designers seeking to align policy expectations with delivery realities through improved onboarding, educator support, and adaptable learning structures. In doing so, this study highlight the potential of structured yet flexible delivery models to support both policy goals and learner-centered practice within national sport systems.