Decreasing Putting Yips in Accomplished Golfers via Solution-Focused Guided Imagery: A Single-Subject Research Design

Bell, Robert J.; Skinner, Christopher H.; Fisher, Leslee A.

doi:10.1080/10413200802443776

Cited by 38 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is also a growing interest in using solution-focused approaches in non-therapy areas. Bell et al (2009) reported on a successful solution-focused intervention deigned to reduce golfers' putting yips (e.g. jerk in the putting stroke).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The differential effects of solution‐focused and problem‐focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice

Grant

O’Connor²

2010

Industrial and Commercial Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore the differential effects of problem-focused and solution-focused coaching questions by means of a literature overview and results of an exploratory pilot study.Design/methodology/approach -In a problem-focused coaching session 39 participants complete a range of measures assessing self-efficacy, their understanding of a problem, positive and negative affect, and goal approach. They then respond to a number of problem-focused coaching questions, and then complete a second set of measures. The 35 participants in a solution-focused session complete a mirror image of the problem-focused condition, responding to solution-focused coaching questions, including the ''Miracle Question''.Findings -Both the problem-focused and the solution-focused conditions are effective at enhancing goal approach. However, the solution-focused group experience significantly greater increases in goal approach compared with the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions reduce negative affect and increase self-efficacy but do not increase understanding of the nature of the problem or enhance positive affect. The solution-focused approach increases positive affect, decreases negative affect, increases self-efficacy as well as increasing participants' insight and understanding of the nature of the problem.Practical implications -Solution-focused coaching questions appear to be more effective than problem-focused questions. Although real-life coaching conversations are not solely solution-focused or solely problem-focused, coaches should aim for a solution-focused theme in their coaching work, if they wish to conduct effective goal-focused coaching sessions that develop a depth of understanding, build self-efficacy, reduce negative affect, increase positive affect and support the process of goal attainment. Originality/value -This is the first study to explore this issue.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The differential effects of solution‐focused and problem‐focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice

Grant

O’Connor²

2010

Industrial and Commercial Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…other reviews of solution-focused counselling and therapeutic interventions have found solution-focused approaches to be effective in relation to enhancing parenting skills and dealing with anxiety, stress, and depression (e.g., Kim, 2008;Stams, Dekovic, Buist, & de Vries, 2006). There is also growing empirical support for the use of solution-focused approaches in nontherapeutic areas such as organizational, executive, and personal coaching and sports coaching (Bell, Skinner, & Fisher, 2009;grant, 2003;Jackson & McKergow, 2002;Szabo & Meier, 2009). This body of empirical literature suggests that solution-focused approaches may well be effective in a number of different contexts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Making Positive Change: A Randomized Study Comparing Solution-Focused vs. Problem-Focused Coaching Questions

Grant¹

2012

Journal of Systemic Therapies

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the effects of problem-focused and solution-focused coaching questions on positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, goal approach, and action planning. A total of 225 participants were randomly assigned to either a problem-focused or solution-focused coaching condition. All participants described a real-life problem that they wanted to solve and set a goal to solve that problem. They then completed a set of measures that assessed levels of positive and negative affect, self-efficacy, and goal attainment. In the problem-focused coaching condition 108 participants then responded to a number of problem-focused coaching questions and then completed a second set of measures. The 117 participants in a solutionfocused coaching session completed a mirror image of the problem-focused condition, responding to solution-focused questions including the "Miracle Question." Both the problem-focused and the solution-focused coaching conditions were effective at enhancing goal approach. However, the solutionfocused group had significantly greater increases in goal approach compared to the problem-focused group. Problem-focused questions did not impact on positive or negative affect or self-efficacy. In contrast the solution-focused approach significantly increased positive affect, decreased negative affect, and increased self-efficacy. In addition, the solution-focused group generated significantly more actions steps to help them reach their goal. Although real-life coaching conversations are not solely solution-focused or solely problem-focused, agents of change should aim for a solution-focused theme in their work if they wish to conduct effective goal-focused sessions.Solution-focused approaches are strength-based approaches that emphasize people's resilience, strengths, and resources and how these can be utilized in the pursuit of goals and the enactment of purposeful positive change (grant, 2011). originating in the counselling and therapeutic fields from anthony M.

show abstract

“…Another key aspect of SCDs and intervention research per se has been to assess intervention and maintenance effects improvements over time (Gardner & Moore, 2006;Martin et al, 2004). Our analysis of the 66 studies revealed that only 12 involved a follow-up phase or maintenance check (Allen, 1998;Barker & Jones, 2005, 2006Bell et al, 2009;Brobst & Ward 2002;Galloway, 2011;Hanton & Jones, 1999;McKenzie & Howe, 1997;Neil et al, this issue;O'Brien et al, 2009;Reeves et al, 2011). To allow stronger conclusions to be drawn about long-term intervention effectiveness, future researchers should consider the inclusion of follow-up or maintenance check procedures, where appropriate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, the individual mental skills targeted in these studies can be divided into five categories: imagery, hypnosis, goal setting, feedback, and self-talk. Specifically, 12 studies involved imagery (e.g., Bell, Skinner, & Fisher, 2009;Mellalieu, Hanton, & Thomas, 2009;Post, Punchie, & Simpson, in press;Wakefield & Smith, 2011), six studies used hypnosis-based interventions (e.g., Barker & Jones, 2005, four studies used goal-setting (Lambert et al, 1999;Mellalieu et al, 2006;O'Brien, Mellalieu, & Hanton, , 2009;McCarthy, Jones, Harwood, & Davenport, 2010), three studies used feedback (Anderson & Kirkpatrick, 2002;Scott et al, 1997;Kladopoulous & McComas, 2001), and three studies used self-talk (Hamilton, Scott, & MacDougall, 2007;Johnson, Hrycaiko, Johnson, & Halas, 2004;Landin & Hebert, 1999).…”

Section: Intervention Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Single-case research in sport psychology 14 Decreasing problem behaviors. Four studies focussed on decreasing problem behaviors including the successful reduction of inappropriate, angry, and aggressive outbursts in tennis (Allen, 1998;Galvan & Ward, 1998) and ice-hockey (Laurer & Paiemet, 2009), and a substantial reduction in occurrences of the 'yips' in golf (Bell et al, 2009).…”

Section: Dependent Variable Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Single-Case Research in Sport Psychology 1997–2012: Research Trends and Future Directions

Barker

Mellalieu

McCarthy

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Single-case research methods are an important facet of applied sport psychology because they 2 provide a framework for researchers and practitioners to outline intervention effects across time with 3 individuals or groups. This paper reviews the research published since Hrycaiko and Martin's (1996) 4 milestone overview of single-case research in sport psychology. Specifically, we examined the 5 literature between 1997 and 2012 and located 66 studies that met our inclusion criteria of assessing 6 interventions in sport psychology. The review summarizes the body of research, outlines trends, 7 considers the limitations of the extant literature, and identifies areas that require further investigation 8 for future single-case research. order to facilitate an understanding of effective interventions and to evaluate applied practice 5 (e.g., Bryan, 1987; Hrycaiko & Martin, 1996; Smith, 1988; Wollman, 1987; Zaichkowsky, 6 1980). The focus of the last milestone paper on this area revealed that SCDs were underused 7 compared to group designs in evaluating applied sport psychology interventions (Hrycaiko & 8 Martin, 1996 Traditionally, scientific development in psychology has predominantly relied on the study of 10 groups of participants via the use of nomothetic (i.e., a tendency to generalize) group-11 orientated designs to establish broad, general, and universal laws (Clark-Carter, 2010). 12However, major scientific advances have also been made through the careful evaluation of 13 idiographic (i.e., a tendency to specify) approaches including one or a few individuals (e.g., The unique feature of SCDs is the capacity to conduct experimental investigations 10 with one or a few cases. Central to the method is the ability to rigorously evaluate the effects Single-case research in sport psychology 6 had traditionally been presented as a mechanism with which to monitor changes in 1 observable behavioral outcomes rather than psychological constructs as measured by 2 psychometric questionnaires (Kazdin, 1982). Finally, the work of Hrycaiko and Martin 3 (1996) remains the last landmark paper regarding the application of SCDs to sport 4 psychology. Within their paper, the authors outlined some fundamental characteristics of 5 SCDs (e.g., procedural reliability, social validation), and debunked some misunderstandings 6 which may have accounted for the paucity of SCD research in sport psychology (note that 7 there were only 12 published articles in sport psychology journals up to 1994). First, they 8 outlined that SCDs are a more robust alternative to the case study given that they can 9 demonstrate internal validity and also external validity via the replication of intervention 10 effects across settings, participants, and outcomes. Second, visual inspection of data in SCDs 11is an appropriate analysis procedure as long as criteria for change are closely followed. SCDs 12 (i.e., the alternating-treatment design option) can be used to compare alternative intervention Single-case research in sport psycholog...

show abstract

Decreasing Putting Yips in Accomplished Golfers via Solution-Focused Guided Imagery: A Single-Subject Research Design

Cited by 38 publications

References 28 publications

The differential effects of solution‐focused and problem‐focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice

The differential effects of solution‐focused and problem‐focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice

Making Positive Change: A Randomized Study Comparing Solution-Focused vs. Problem-Focused Coaching Questions

A Review of Single-Case Research in Sport Psychology 1997–2012: Research Trends and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About