7
Article Critique
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Article Critique
Introduction
The article by Mesagno et al., 2015 sought to examine whether the type of performance routine training could enhance tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance. Researchers have demonstrated that pre-performance routines can improve under pressure, yet none has investigated the effects of pre-performance routines. In an attempt to improve athlete performance, applied sport psychologists, in part, educate them to be cognizant of inconsistencies in performance. They also apply volitional control to reduce the negative spontaneous responses to competitive situations and the utilization of more adaptive self-regulation (Mesagno et al., 2015). Psychologists can achieve the desirable behavior through functional self-regulation as individuals resist inappropriate impulses and adheres to the correct behavior. The pre-performance routine (PPR) is one of the self-regulation strategies provided by sport psychologists to enhance athletes’ attentional and emotional control. Using PPR, a sequence of task-relevant thoughts and actions are provided in a systematic manner before the athlete performs the sport skill. Therefore, the researchers used PPRs to establish its ability to enhance performance of closed and self-paced tasks such as free-throw shooting in a basketball or putting in golf.
The introduction of this article has identified the problem or purpose of the study. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the type of performance routine training, such as pre- or post-performance could enhance tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance utilizing real-world competition. There is a clear relationship between the variables under study, that is, performance routine training and improved tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance. The variables are testable by introducing athletes to performance routine training before performing the sport skill to assess for increased accuracy. Purpose or problem statement of the study has specified the nature of the population being studied, which is the athletes. The issue being investigated is significant in determining whether the proposed intervention would improve in-game performance of athletes.
Methods
The researchers employed a mixed-method design to investigate the problem under study. The design used allowed the researchers to make inferences and draw conclusions from quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The mixed-method design converges quantitative and qualitative methods, maximizing each method’s strengths, while minimizing the limitations; hence offers a comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The participants included 36 league bowlers and their average league bowling snake scored between 142 and 207 (Mesagno et al., 2015). The researchers randomly grouped the participants into four groups, including pre-performance routine (PPR), combined pre-performance routine, POST, and wait-list control. The PPR group involved receiving a sequence of psychological, physiological and behavioral steps (Mesagno et al., 2015). The Post group received a series of questions developed by elite coaches for reflection by bowlers, allowing them to adjust their performance following each shot. The researchers individualized the routines for each participant, without the implementation of standardized routines. The interventions’ emotional and cognitive effects were explored through interview. The interviews included mixed-methods semi-structured interviews covering about 16 to 34 minutes. The researchers recorded the participants’ demographics and used a standard bowling equipment for performance tasks.
The study’s methodology is well-structured and the researchers ensured the personalization of the PPR and POST routines. Tailoring the interventions to the uniqueness of each participants can facilitate more reliable results. Howe, the POST questions developed by elite coaches lack empirical validation, raising concerns regarding their validity. The researchers could have avoided the inclusion of one participant with prior psychology training in each group as it may lead to potential bias. Although the researchers may gather qualitative insights through the use of interviews, more robust qualitative measures could enhance the study results’ reliability. The use of more standardized PPR elements could have been beneficial to assess whether generalizable routines could be applicable across multiple skills levels.
Results
Three of the participants got injuries and the study results analysis included 33 participants. The researchers confirmed the groups’ homogeneity using ANOVA, in terms of practice habits and league averages. The researchers found no significant differences between groups or tests using a mixed-design ANOVA to analyze for performance accuracy. However, there were significant improvements for participants assigned to the PPR and combined groups using descriptive statistics. They found no substantial interactions or differences for in-game performance (Mesagno et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there were significant improvements in league score, and higher scores were recorded in the post and follow-up tests than pre-intervention period. Qualitative interviews highlighted the role of routines in perceived improvements in performance, attributed to emotional and attentional control, self-confidence and consistency (Mesagno et al., 2015). The benefits of PPR and POST strategies were evident with many of the participants linking the performance improvements with increased focus and control during games.
An analysis of the results section shows the importance of incorporating various methods of data analysis. The quantitative analysis revealed no significant group variations, but the use of decretive statistics suggests meaningful improvements in accuracy for the PPR and combined groups. The small sample size may be attributed to the lack of statistical significance based on the study results. The interview data may be subject to positive framing of routines by participants despite the useful insights provided. A larger and diverse sample size and the use of more robust statistical methods would help to identify even the slight improvements in performance. In addition, while the reliance on subjective perceptions in interviews may offer useful insights, it may hinder the researchers’ ability to make strong claims regarding the interventions’ effectiveness. The use of tables and figures in the results section is appropriate, and gives a deep insight into the research findings.
Conclusion
The researchers concluded that PPR are effective in improving in-game performance via an improvement in increased accuracy. The qualitative data is an indication of the mechanisms underlying this effect. Increased consistency was an integral aspect in PPR and POST enhanced performance. Aspects such as improved emotional control, improved participants focus, motivation and self-awareness and self-confidence contributed to increased consistency. Practitioners working with athletes can find the study findings valuable, as athletes often perform under competitive pressure. The researchers have highlighted the study’s limitations, including moderate statistical power associated with smaller sample size and inadequate number of league games utilized in the computation of the averages. The blending of qualitative and quantitative approaches can allow for observation of mechanisms underlying performance improvements.
Although the study’s conclusion points to its limitations such as iPod-related distractions and smaller sample size. It has not fully addressed the significant impact of those limitations on the overall validity of the study. The study findings may be subject to bias due to overreliance on subjective experiences shared by the participants. Such bias are likely to weaken the objective interpretation of the effects of the routines. The researchers presume the improvements in performance to directly relate to routines, but fail to account for the potential impact of other variables, like impulsive implementation of the routines by the control group. The researchers’ suggestion to exploring the impact of POST routines in multiple sports is instrumental. It also important that future research integrates a larger sample size to address the highlighted limitations and improve the generalizability of the research findings. Future studies should also consider enhancing the efficacy of the routines through individualization to the specific participants. Regardless, the study has underscored valuable insights into ways PPR and POST can enhance performance through enhanced focus, increased consistency and emotional control.
Mesagno, C., Hill, D. M., & Larkin, P. (2015). Examining the accuracy and in-game performance effects between pre- and post-performance routines: A mixed methods study.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
19, 85-94.
