Well-Being and Throwing Speed of Women Handball Players Affected by Feedback
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Apparatus and Task
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Measures
2.4.1. Independent Variable
2.4.2. Outcomes
Psychological Variables
Performance Variables
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion
Limitations and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Schmidt, R.A.; Lee, T.D. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis, 5th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ávila, L.; Chiviacowsky, S.; Wulf, G.; Lewthwaite, R. Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012, 13, 849–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barzouka, K.; Sotiropoulos, K.; Kioumourtzoglou, E. The effect of feedback through an expert model observation on performance and learning the pass skill in volleyball and motivation. J. Phys. Educ. Sport 2015, 15, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koka, A.; Hein, V. Perceptions of teacher’s feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2003, 4, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siemens, J.C.; Smith, S.; Fisher, D.; Thyroff, A.; Killian, G. Level Up! The Role of Progress Feedback Type for Encouraging Intrinsic Motivation and Positive Brand Attitudes in Public Versus Private Gaming Contexts. J. Interact. Mark. 2015, 32, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weidinger, A.F.; Spinath, B.; Steinmayr, R. Why does intrinsic motivation decline following negative feedback? The mediating role of ability self-concept and its moderation by goal orientations. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2016, 47, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiviacowsky, S.; Wulf, G. Feedback after Good Trials Enhances Learning. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2007, 78, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wulf, G.; Shea, C.; Lewthwaite, R. Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Med. Educ. 2010, 44, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amorose, A.J.; Horn, T.S. Intrinsic Motivation: Relationships with Collegiate Athletes’ Gender, Scholarship Status, and Perceptions of Their Coaches’ Behavior. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2000, 22, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amorose, A.J.; Smith, P.J. Feedback as a Source of Physical Competence Information: Effects of Age, Experience and Type of Feedback. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2003, 25, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicaise, V.; Cogérino, G.; Bois, J.; Amorose, A.J. Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback and Physical Competence in Physical Education Classes: Gender Effects. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2006, 25, 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beattie, S.; Woodman, T.; Fakehy, M.; Dempsey, C. The role of performance feedback on the self-efficacy–performance relationship. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 2016, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mouratidis, A.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Lens, W.; Sideridis, G. The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2008, 30, 240–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Allen, J.B.; Howe, B.L. Player Ability, Coach Feedback, and Female Adolescent Athletes’ Perceived Competence and Satisfaction. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1998, 20, 280–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schunk, D.H.; Cox, P.D. Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning disabled students. J. Educ. Psychol. 1986, 78, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badami, R.; VaezMousavi, M.; Namazizadeh, M.; Wulf, G. Feedback after good versus poor trials: Differential effects on self confidence and activation. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2012, 2, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piltz, W. Applying expertise from play practice and complexity perspectives to transform coaching and teaching practice. Agora. Deporte. 2015, 17, 26–44. [Google Scholar]
- Smoll, F.L.; Smith, R.E. Coaching behavior research and intervention in youth sports. Child. Youth Sport Biopsychosoc. Perspect. 2002, 2, 211–234. [Google Scholar]
- Høigaard, H.; De Cuyper, B.; Fransen, K.; Boen, F.; Peters, D.M. Perceived coach behavior in training and competition predicts collective efficacy in female elite handball players. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 2015, 46, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.; Frederick, C.M. On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J. Personal. 1997, 65, 529–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adie, J.W.; Duda, J.L.; Ntoumanis, N. Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal investigation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012, 13, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bartholomew, K.J.; Ntoumanis, N.; Ryan, R.; Bosch, J.A. Self-Determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 37, 1459–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- González, L.; Castillo, I.; García-Merita, M.; Balaguer, I. Apoyo a la autonomía, satisfacción de las necesidades psicológicas y bienestar: Invarianza de un modelo estructural en futbolistas y bailarines. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2015, 24, 121–129. [Google Scholar]
- Saemi, E.; Porter, J.; Ghotbi-Varzaneh, A.; Zarghami, M.; Maleki, F. Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012, 13, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallerand, R.J.; Reid, G. On the relative effects of positive and negative verbal feedback on males’ and females’ intrinsic motivation. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 1988, 20, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bandura, A.; Cervone, D. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45, 1017–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiner, B. Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory; General Learning Press: Morristown, NJ, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Krenn, B.; Würth, S.; Hergovich, A. The Impact of Feedback on Goal Setting and Task Performance. Testing the feedback intervention theory. Swiss J. Psychol. 2013, 72, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, S.; Balaguer, I.; Duda, J.L. The relationship of task self-efficacy and role efficacy beliefs to role performance in Spanish youth soccer. J. Sports Sci. 2004, 22, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.A. Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahoney, A.J.; Devonport, T.; Lane, A.M. The Effects of Interval Feedback on the Self-Efficacy of Netball Umpires. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2008, 7, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
- García, J.A.; Carcedo, R.J.; Castaño, J.L. The Influence of Feedback on Competence, Motivation, Vitality, and Performance in a Throwing Task. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2019, 90, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpentier, J.; Mageau, G.A. When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2013, 14, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, S.J.; Weiss, M.R. The Relationship among Perceived Coaching Behaviors, Perceptions of Ability, and Motivation In Competitive Age-Group Swimmers. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1992, 14, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbach, A.; Eyal, T.; Finkelstein, S.R. How Positive and Negative Feedback Motivate Goal Pursuit. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2010, 4, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, W. Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability. In European Review of Social Psychology; Stroebe, W., Hewstone, M., Eds.; Wiley & Sons Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 259–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, R.S.; Gould, D. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jussim, L.; Soffin, S.; Brown, R.; Ley, J.; Al, E. Understanding reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 62, 402–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sansone, C. Competence feedback, task feedback, and intrinsic interest: An examination of process and context. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 25, 343–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tata, J. The Influence of Managerial Accounts on Employees’ Reactions to Negative Feedback. Group Organ. Manag. 2002, 27, 480–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escarti, A.; Guzmán, J.F. Effects of feedback on self-efficacy, performance, and choice in an athletic task. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 1999, 11, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gernigon, C.; Delloye, J.-B. Self-Efficacy, Causal Attribution, and Track Athletic Performance Following Unexpected Success or Failure among Elite Sprinters. Sport Psychol. 2003, 17, 55–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García, J.A.; Sabido, R.; Barbado, D.; Moreno, F.J. Analysis of the relation between throwing speed and throwing accuracy in team-handball according to instruction. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2013, 13, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Tillaar, R.; Ettema, G. A Comparison between Novices and Experts of the Velocity-Accuracy Trade-Off in Overarm Throwing. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2006, 103, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tripp, B.L.; Boswell, L.; Gansneder, B.M.; Shultz, S.J. Functional Fatigue Decreases 3-Dimensional Multijoint Position Reproduction Acuity in the Overhead-Throwing Athlete. J. Athl. Train. 2004, 39, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Elliot, A.J.; Harackiewicz, J.M. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, A.; Faler, J.; McGregor, H.A.; Campbell, W.K.; Sedikides, C.; Harackiewicz, J.M. Competence Valuation as a Strategic Intrinsic Motivation Process. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 26, 780–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McAuley, E.; Duncan, T.; Tammen, V.V. Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 1989, 60, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Núñez, J.L.; Martín-Albo, J.; Navarro, J. Propiedades psicométricas de la versión española de la escala de motivación deportiva. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2007, 16, 211–223. [Google Scholar]
- Briere, N.; Vallerand, R.; Blais, M.; Pelletier, L. Developpement et validation d’une mesure de motivation intrinseque, extrinseque et d’amotivation en contexte sportif: L’Echelle de Motivation dans les Sports (EMS). Int. J. Sport Psychol. 1995, 26, 465–489. [Google Scholar]
- Bostic, T.J.; Rubio, D.M.; Hood, M. A Validation of the Subjective Vitality Scale Using Structural Equation Modeling. Soc. Indic. Res. 2000, 52, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandín, B.; Chorot, P.; Tostao, L.; Joiner, T.E.; Santed, M.A.; Valiente, R.M. Escalas PANAS de afecto cognitivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia transcultural. Psicothema 1999, 11, 37–51. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancock, G.R.; Butler, M.S.; Fischman, M.G. On the Problem of Two-Dimensional Error Scores: Measures and Analyses of Accuracy, Bias, and Consistency. J. Mot. Behav. 1995, 27, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerland, M.W. T-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—A paradox of statistical practice? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Feis, Y. Nonparametric tests for the interaction in two-way factorial designs using R. R. J. 2016, 8, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gibbons, J. Nonparametric Statistics; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Noguchi, K.; Latif, M.; Thangavelu, K.; Konietschke, F.; Gel, Y.; Brunner, E. Package ‘nparLD’: Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments 2015. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nparLD/nparLD.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Konietschke, F.; Noguchi, K.; Rubarth, K. Package ‘nparcomp’: Multiple Comparisons and Simultaneous Confidence Intervals; R Package Version 3.0. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nparcomp/nparcomp.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Torchiano, M. Package ‘effsize’: Efficient Effect Size Computation; R Package Version 0.8.0. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/effsize/effsize.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Cheng, R.W.; Lam, S.-F. Self-construal and social comparison effects. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 77, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wulf, G.; Lewthwaite, R. Attentional and motivational influences on motor performance and learning. In Art in Motion: Musical and Athletic Motor Learning and Performance; Mornell, A., Ed.; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2009; pp. 95–117. [Google Scholar]
- Wulf, G.; Lewthwaite, R. Effortless motor learning? An external focus of attention enhances movement effective-ness and efficiency. In Effortless Attention: A New Perspective in the Cognitive Science of Attention and Action; Bruya, B., Ed.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 75–101. [Google Scholar]
Performance Variables | Feedback | Set of Pitches | Median | Q1–Q3 | Rank Mean | N |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Throw | f0 | 1–10 p. | 88.00 | 83.08–87.96 | 48.00 | 13 |
Speed | 11–20 p. | 90.63 | 88.99–93.23 | 62.42 | 13 | |
21–30 p. | 90.63 | 86.96–92.27 | 56.42 | 13 | ||
f− | 1–10 p. | 86.09 | 82.60–87.69 | 31.92 | 13 | |
11–20 p. | 91.73 | 87.09–94.46 | 67.35 | 13 | ||
21–30 p. | 92.31 | 88.12–96.22 | 74.00 | 13 | ||
f+ | 1–10 p. | 91.20 | 85.21–93.33 | 57.58 | 13 | |
11–20 p. | 92.21 | 87.94–92.60 | 62.58 | 13 | ||
21–30 p. | 92.47 | 90.59–94.52 | 70.73 | 13 | ||
Throw | f0 | 1–10 p. | 45.38 | 39.23–51.56 | 54.38 | 13 |
Accuracy | 11–20 p. | 48.68 | 44.54–58.17 | 62.46 | 13 | |
21–30 p. | 41.44 | 36.13–44.93 | 44.46 | 13 | ||
f− | 1–10 p. | 50.93 | 40.95–55.74 | 59.62 | 13 | |
11–20 p. | 39.61 | 31.99–48.92 | 45.62 | 13 | ||
21–30 p. | 36.92 | 33.54–41.87 | 40.38 | 13 | ||
f+ | 1–10 p. | 51.58 | 43.76–62.53 | 69.15 | 13 | |
11–20 p. | 53.57 | 37.52–82.12 | 71.69 | 13 | ||
21–30 p. | 62.15 | 51.34–70.85 | 83.23 | 13 | ||
Psychological Variables | Feedback | Time of Measure | Median | Q1–Q3 | Rank Mean | N |
Competence | f0 | Before | 5.75 | 5.75–6.00 | 48.35 | 13 |
Valuation | After | 5.25 | 5.00–5.50 | 25.00 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 6.00 | 6.00–6.00 | 57.23 | 13 | |
After | 5.25 | 5.00–5.50 | 25.12 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 6.00 | 5.50–6.00 | 50.96 | 13 | |
After | 5.50 | 5.25–5.50 | 30.35 | 13 | ||
Perceived | f0 | Before | 4.00 | 3.40–4.20 | 38.00 | 13 |
Competence | After | 3.80 | 3.20–4.60 | 35.38 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 4.60 | 4.00–5.00 | 49.88 | 13 | |
After | 4.40 | 3.20–4.60 | 35.69 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 4.00 | 3.00–4.80 | 37.04 | 13 | |
After | 4.20 | 3.40–4.60 | 41.00 | 13 | ||
Autonomous | f0 | Before | 6.50 | 5.92–6.67 | 31.58 | 13 |
Motivation | After | 6.25 | 5.83–6.67 | 31.12 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 6.58 | 6.17–6.92 | 42.85 | 13 | |
After | 6.58 | 5.75–7.00 | 41.23 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 6.83 | 5.83–7.00 | 43.15 | 13 | |
After | 7.00 | 5.75–7.00 | 47.08 | 13 | ||
Subjective | f0 | Before | 5.67 | 5.00–5.83 | 38.85 | 13 |
Vitality | After | 5.17 | 4.50–5.83 | 35.23 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 5.67 | 4.83–6.00 | 41.15 | 13 | |
After | 5.00 | 3.83–5.67 | 30.42 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 5.67 | 5.00–6.50 | 46.62 | 13 | |
After | 5.67 | 4.67–6.83 | 44.73 | 13 | ||
Positive | f0 | Before | 4.10 | 3.90–4.30 | 41.19 | 13 |
Affect | After | 4.10 | 3.40–4.30 | 39.04 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 4.20 | 3.90–4.30 | 41.23 | 13 | |
After | 3.70 | 3.10–4.10 | 28.35 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 4.00 | 3.40–4.70 | 41.35 | 13 | |
After | 4.30 | 3.40–4.80 | 45.85 | 13 | ||
Negative | f0 | Before | 2.50 | 1.90–2.70 | 46.04 | 13 |
Affect | After | 2.80 | 1.80–3.30 | 46.62 | 13 | |
f− | Before | 1.80 | 1.50–2.30 | 35.42 | 13 | |
After | 2.40 | 1.90–2.90 | 43.15 | 13 | ||
f+ | Before | 1.90 | 1.40–2.80 | 34.69 | 13 | |
After | 1.70 | 1.30–2.70 | 31.08 | 13 |
Performance Variables | Feedback | Time | Feedback*Time | Post-Hoc Comparisons for Significant Interactions (Cliff’s Delta b) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F (df a) | F (df a) | F (df a) | No Feedback f0 | Negative Feedback f− | Positive Feedback f+ | 1–10 Pitches t0 | 11–20 Pitches t1 | 21–30 Pitches t2 | |
Throw | 0.29 | 11.48 *** | 3.06 * | t0 = t1 (−0.25, S) | t0 < t1 (−0.57, L) *** | t0 = t1 (−0.02, N) | f0 = f− (−0.23, S) | f0 = f− (0.15, S) | f0 = f− (0.28, S) |
Speed | (1.98) | (1.83) | (3.42) | t1 = t2 (0.14, N) | t1 = t2 (−0.15, S) | t1 = t2 (−0.21, S) | f0 = f+ (−0.2, N) | f0 = f+ (0.08, N) | f0 < f+ (−0.30, S) |
t0 = t2 (0.21, S) | t0 < t2 (−0.64, L) *** | t0 = t2 (−0.16, S) | f− = f+ (−0.30, S) | f− = f+ (0.10, N) | f− < f+ (0.12, N) | ||||
Throw | 4.19 * | 0.41 | 2.10 | ||||||
Accuracy | (1.82) | (1.87) | (3.44) |
Psychological Variables | Feedback | Time | Feedback*Time | Post-Hoc Comparisons for Significant Interactions (Cliff’s Delta b) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F (df a) | F (df a) | F (df a) | No Feedback f0 | Negative Feedback f− | Positive Feedback f+ | Before Throwing Task t0 | After Throwing Task t1 | |
Competence | 0.32 | 68.31 *** | 1.28 | |||||
Valuation | (1.97) | (1.00) | (1.96) | |||||
Perceived | 0.30 | 1.59 | 2.44 | |||||
Competence | (1.98) | (1.00) | (1.84) | |||||
Autonomous | 1.48 | 0.09 | 0.64 | |||||
Motivation | (1.74) | (1.00) | (1.70) | |||||
Subjective | 0.90 | 2.99 | 0.75 | |||||
Vitality | (1.80) | (1.00) | (1.77) | |||||
Positive | 0.55 | 2.23 | 4.63 * | t0 = t1 (0.07, N) | t0 > t1 (0.36, M) ** | t0 = t1 (−0.09, N) | f0 = f− (0.03, N) | f0 = f− (−0.30, S) |
Affect | (1.85) | (1.00) | (1.75) | f0 = f+ (0.01, N) | f0 = f+ (−0.18, S) | |||
Negative | 1.32 | 0.38 | 1.70 | |||||
Affect | (1.95) | (1.00) | (1.94) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Soto, D.; García-Herrero, J.A.; Carcedo, R.J. Well-Being and Throwing Speed of Women Handball Players Affected by Feedback. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176064
Soto D, García-Herrero JA, Carcedo RJ. Well-Being and Throwing Speed of Women Handball Players Affected by Feedback. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(17):6064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176064
Chicago/Turabian StyleSoto, Diego, Juan Antonio García-Herrero, and Rodrigo J. Carcedo. 2020. "Well-Being and Throwing Speed of Women Handball Players Affected by Feedback" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 17: 6064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176064