The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS-15) is a 15-item athlete-report measure designed to assess perceived coaching leadership behaviors within sporting contexts (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Rather than measuring leadership from the coach’s perspective, the LSS-15 captures athletes’ experiences and perceptions of their coach’s leadership style, providing valuable insight into the coach-athlete relationship and leadership effectiveness from the recipient’s viewpoint.
The scale evaluates five distinct dimensions of coaching leadership behaviour:
Example LSS-15 Parent Item
Based on Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Multidimensional Model of Leadership, the LSS-15 recognises that effective coaching requires both technical competencies (training athletes and developing strategies) and interpersonal skills (motivating, supporting, and understanding individual athlete needs; Fletcher & Roberts, 2013). This comprehensive approach acknowledges that coaching leadership extends beyond tactical expertise to include relationship management and athlete development.
Sports psychologists and coaches use the LSS-15 to evaluate coach-athlete relationship quality and identify areas for leadership development, provide constructive feedback to coaches about their leadership strengths and areas for improvement, assess team dynamics and leadership satisfaction in elite and recreational sporting environments, and guide coaching education and professional development programs to enhance both technical and interpersonal leadership skills (Teques et al., 2020).
The LSS-15 scores are presented as a total raw score (between 0 and 60), and a score for each subscale (between 0 and 12). In addition, scores are presented as percentile ranges comparing the respondents score against an athlete normative dataset (Teques et al., 2020). A percentile score of 50 represents average scores compared to the comparison group of athletes.
Higher scores are indicative of a more positive relationship between athlete and coach, except for on the Autocratic Behaviour subscale where lower scores are indicative of a better relationship. Democratic behaviour and Autocratic Behaviour are negatively correlated, so if scores on both subscales are high (above 80th percentile) or low (below 20th percentile) then it may indicate the athlete has not responded accurately. One would normally expect that when Autocratic Behaviour is low Democratic Behaviour will be high, and vice versa.
The five subscales are:
Upon first administration a plot is displayed showing the total score and the subscale score percentiles with shading in the background to aid interpretation. Note the inverse colouring for the Autocratic Behaviour subscale where lower scoring is more indicative of a better coach-athlete relationship. Upon multiple administration two plots are presented: (i) a subscale raw score plot to help indicate if change has occurred and (ii) a total score and subscale percentile plot.
This scale has been extensively validated in studies on various sports (e.g., football/soccer, ice hockey, basketball) and different cultural contexts (e.g., the United States, Canada, Japan, and Singapore) (Chia, Pyun, &Kwon, 2015; Chittle, Horton, Weir, & Dixon, 2015; Kwon, Pyun, Han, & Ogasawara, 2011; Riemer, & Chelladurai, 1995).
Given that the psychometric properties of the original 40-item LSS were problematic (e.g. Kwon et al., 2011), a 25-item version was created (Chiu et al., 2016). This was further refined into the 15-item version (Teques et al., 2020). In general, findings suggest that the LSS-15 performs better in comparison to the 25-item version and the LSS-15 is a valid and reliable alternative to the 25-item LSS (Chiu et al., 2016) and long 40-item LSS (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).
Studies using CFA have found support for the 5-factor structure of the LSS (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998; Fletcher & Roberts, 2013; Teques et al., 2020). Researchers tested the longitudinal stability and psychometric properties of the original 40-item version of the LSS and found that the original scale is stable over time (Fletcher & Roberts, 2013). The five subscales of the LSS-15 demonstrate moderate to high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .75 to .93, mean α = .82; Teques et al., 2020).
Based on data from Teques et al. (2020), the means and standard deviations are calculated as below, and are used to calculate percentiles (based upon 373 male and female athletes). Note the normative data is negatively skewed so percentiles should be interpreted with caution.
The current version of the LSS-15 is the athlete’s perception of the coach, however there are three versions of the LSS-15. The other two are a coach self-evaluation and player preferences for coaching (Teques et al., 2020; Zhang, Jensen, & Mann, 1997). To distinguish between the three versions requires a simple change to the instructional wording preceding from “I prefer my coach to…” (athlete preference), to “My coach…” (athlete perception), and “I…” (coach self-evaluation) (Zhang et al, 1997).
The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS-15) measures athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ leadership behaviours across five key dimensions: Training & Instruction, Democratic Behaviour, Autocratic Behaviour, Social Support, and Positive Feedback. This is important because the coach-athlete relationship is fundamental to both athletic performance and psychological wellbeing in sport. Research shows that coaching style significantly impacts athlete motivation, satisfaction, burnout risk, and dropout rates. The LSS-15 provides objective data about how athletes experience their coaching, which can be particularly valuable when there’s a mismatch between how coaches think they’re behaving and how athletes actually perceive them.
The LSS-15 presents results as percentiles comparing the athlete’s responses to normative data from other athletes. A percentile score of 50 represents average scores compared to the athlete population. For most subscales (Training & Instruction, Democratic Behaviour, Social Support, and Positive Feedback), higher percentiles indicate more positive coach-athlete relationships – for example, a score at the 80th percentile means the athlete rates their coach more positively than 80% of other athletes. However, the Autocratic Behaviour subscale works inversely – lower percentiles indicate better relationships, as autocratic coaching styles are generally associated with poorer athlete outcomes. It’s important to note that Democratic and Autocratic behaviours are negatively correlated, so if both scores are very high or very low, this may indicate inconsistent responding or misunderstanding of the questions.
High scores on the Autocratic Behaviour subscale indicate that athletes perceive their coach as maintaining strict control over all decisions, refusing to compromise, and not explaining their actions. While some degree of clear leadership is necessary in coaching, excessive autocratic behaviour can be particularly problematic in sports where it’s associated with decreased motivation, increased anxiety, and higher dropout rates. Research suggests that autocratic coaching styles are especially harmful when not balanced with social support and positive feedback. If an athlete scores their coach above the 80th percentile for Autocratic Behaviour, this suggests the coaching style is more controlling than what 80% of athletes experience. This might warrant discussion about coaching approaches, particularly if paired with low scores on Democratic Behaviour and Social Support subscales, as this combination often predicts poor athlete wellbeing and performance outcomes.
The LSS-15 can be used as both an assessment and intervention tool in sports psychology practice. Initially, it provides baseline data about the coach-athlete relationship from the athlete’s perspective, identifying specific areas of strength and concern. For instance, a coach might score well on Training & Instruction but poorly on Positive Feedback, suggesting they’re technically competent but need to work on recognition and encouragement. The measure can be administered periodically to track changes, particularly after coach education programmes or interventions. It’s also valuable for team-wide assessment – if multiple athletes on the same team complete the LSS-15, patterns can emerge that help coaches understand their impact. The concrete subscale scores facilitate specific, targeted conversations between coaches, athletes, and sport psychologists about what’s working and what needs adjustment, moving beyond vague complaints to actionable coaching behaviours.
Although the LSS-15 is set for use with adults (18+) it could possibly be used with athletes who can comprehend and respond to questions about their coaching experiences e.g., adolescents (16+). If a clinician decides to use it with younger athletes, it may be helpful to read questions aloud or ensure they understand terms like “strategies” and “tactics.” The measure could be valuable in youth sport contexts where coach behaviour has impacts beyond just athletic performance. Young athletes may need reassurance that their responses are confidential and won’t be shared directly with their coach without permission. It’s important to consider developmental factors when interpreting results – younger athletes might rate Democratic Behaviour differently than older athletes who desire more autonomy. Additionally, cultural context matters, as expectations about coaching styles vary across different sports and cultural backgrounds. Regular monitoring with the LSS-15 throughout development can help ensure coaching approaches evolve appropriately with athletes’ changing developmental needs.
Teques, P., Silva, C., Rosado, A., Calmeiro, L., & Serpa, S. (2020). Refining the Short Version of the Leadership Scale for Sports: Factorial Validation and Measurement Invariance. Psychological Reports, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120953560
Chiu, W., Rodriguez, F. M., & Won, D. (2016). Revisiting the Leadership Scale for Sport: Examining Factor Structure Through Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Psychological Reports, 119(2), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116662880
Cotterill, S. T., & Fransen, K. (2016). Athlete leadership in sport teams: Current understanding and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2015.1124443
Fletcher, R. B., & Roberts, M. H. (2013). Longitudinal Stability of the Leadership Scale for Sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2013.761021
Jambor, E. A., & Zhang, J. J. (1997). Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior; Mobile, 20(3), 313–321.
Kwon, H. H., Pyun, D. Y., Han, S., & Ogasawara, E. (2011). Testing for factorial invariance of the modified leadership scale for sports: Using a Japanese version. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 31 (1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.544240
Teques, P., Silva, C., Rosado, A., Calmeiro, L., & Serpa, S. (2020). Refining the Short Version of the Leadership Scale for Sports: Factorial Validation and Measurement Invariance. Psychological Reports, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120953560
Zhang, J., Jensen, B. E., & Mann, B. L. (1997). Modification and revision of the leadership scale for sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 105–122.
