Qualitative study explores coaches' views on using the 5Cs framework for autistic youth in sports, highlighting challenges and recommendations.
Coaching frameworks are often developed around neurotypical norms, which may contribute socially constructed barriers to sports for autistic youth. The 5Cs framework was developed to promote positive youth development, build social and mental skills, and enhance performance - skills that have been highlighted as beneficial to sport participation for autistic youth. However, coaches are often not provided with relevant training to effectively promote positive youth development in autistic youth. This study examined coaches’ perspectives on the applicability of the 5Cs to autistic youth, drawing on a relativist, interpretivist qualitative paradigm. Reflexive thematic analysis of 8 interviews with coaches experienced in coaching autistic youth identified two themes: coach knowledge and understanding of the 5Cs and autism; and shifting perspective: the diverse reality of autism. Coaches reported limited autism-specific content within coach education, leaving them reliant on informal, experience-based learning that reinforced feelings of precarity when supporting autistic athletes. While elements of the 5Cs were often enacted implicitly, coaches highlighted that the framework’s grounded in neurotypical norms constrained its relevance for autistic youth. This this study contributes by critically evaluating the assumptions underpinning positive youth development frameworks. Findings suggest the need to reconceptualise application of the 5Cs through neurodiversity-informed, person-centred, flexible coaching practices attentive to individual sensory profiles, interests, and engagement. This research shows existing coaching frameworks may unintentionally perpetuate ableist assumptions about autistic youth. Findings support the need for neurodiversity-informed coach education to challenge assumptions and better meet the diverse needs of autistic youth athletes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhanda et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: