The Effect of Gradual Self-Control of Task Difficulty and Feedback on Learning Golf Putting

Jalalvand, Mojtaba; Bahram, Abbas; Daneshfar, Afkham; Arsham, Saeed

doi:10.1080/02701367.2019.1612510

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those 25 experiments included 13 experiments that reported a statistically significant result, along with 12 that failed to find a significant selfcontrolled learning effect. Among the 13 experiments with missing data reporting a significant self-control benefit, one reported an inappropriate analysis (Hemayattalab et al, 2013), 6 one reported statistics that do not match the experimental design (Jalalvand et al, 2019), 7 one reported significant effects on a partial analysis of their data rather than overall (Brydges et al, 2009), and one was previously identified by Lohse and colleagues 2016 as an outlier study (M. J. Carter & Patterson, 2012).…”

Section: Author Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analytic Findings of the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

McKay

Yantha

Hussien

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The self-controlled motor learning literature consists of experiments that compare a group of learners who are provided with a choice over an aspect of their practice environment to a group who are yoked to those choices. A qualitative review of the literature suggests an unambiguous benefit from self-controlled practice. A meta-analysis was conducted on the effects of self-controlled practice on retention test performance measures with a focus on assessing and potentially correcting for selection bias in the literature, such as publication bias and p-hacking. First, a naïve random effects model was fit to the data and a moderate benefit of self-controlled practice, g = .44 (k = 52, N = 2061, 95% CI [.31, .56]), was found. Second, publication status was added to the model as a potential moderator, revealing a significant difference between published and unpublished findings, with only the former reporting a benefit of self-controlled practice. Third, to investigate and adjust for the impact of selectively reporting statistically significant results, a weight-function model was fit to the data with a one-tailed p-value cutpoint of .025. The weight-function model revealed substantial selection bias and estimated the true average effect of self- controlled practice as g = .107 (95% CI [.047, .18]). P-curve analyses were conducted on the statistically significant results published in the literature and the outcome suggested a lack of evidential value. Fourth, a suite of sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of these results, all of which converged on trivially small effect estimates. Overall, our results suggest the benefit of self-controlled practice on motor learning is small and not currently distinguishable from zero.

show abstract

Section: Author Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analytic Findings of the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

McKay

Yantha

Hussien

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those 25 experiments included 13 experiments that reported a statistically significant result, along with 12 that failed to find a significant self-controlled learning effect. Among the 13 experiments with missing data reporting a significant self-control benefit, one reported an inappropriate analysis (Hemayattalab et al, 2013), 2 one reported statistics that do not match the experimental design (Jalalvand et al, 2019), 3 one reported significant effects on a partial analysis of their data rather than overall (Brydges et al, 2009), and one was previously identified by Lohse and colleagues (2016) as an outlier study (M. J. Carter & Patterson, 2012).…”

Section: Missing Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analytic Findings in the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

McKay¹,

Yantha²,

Hussien³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The self-controlled motor learning literature consists of experiments that compare a group of learners who are provided with a choice over an aspect of their practice environment to a group who are yoked to those choices. A qualitative review of the literature suggests an unambiguous benefit from self-controlled practice. A meta-analysis was conducted on the effects of self-controlled practice on retention test performance measures with a focus on assessing and potentially correcting for selection bias in the literature, such as publication bias and p-hacking. First, a naïve random effects model was fit to the data and a moderate benefit of self-controlled practice, g=.44 (k= 52,N= 3134,95%CI[.31, .56]), was found. Second, publication status was added to the model as a potential moderator, revealing a significant difference between published and unpublished findings, with only the former reporting a benefit of self-controlled practice. Third, to investigate and adjust for the impact of selectively reporting statistically significant results, a weight-function model was fit to the data with a one-tailed p-value cutpoint of .025. The weight-function model revealed substantial selection bias and estimated the true average effect of self-controlled practice as g=.107 (95%CI[.047, .18]). P-curve analyses were conducted on the statistically significant results published in the literature and the outcome suggested a lack of evidential value. Fourth, a suite of sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of these results, all of which converged on trivially small effect estimates. Overall, our results suggest the benefit of self-controlled practice on motor learning is small and not currently distinguishable from zero.

show abstract

“…An et al ( 33 ) and Post et al ( 40 ) included young adults, whereas de Souza Nunes ( 36 ) included elderly people. The fourth study ( 38 ) included 60 novice golfers who were divided into four groups based on two factors: task difficulty control and feedback control. The “dual-factor gradual self-control group” could select both the task difficulty, by choosing a predetermined distance, and the timing of verbal feedback.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Augmented feedback has been studied extensively, and it is widely accepted that it can be used as a key element to facilitate motor skill learning [for review see ( 81 )]. The findings of golf studies in the field of augmented feedback are highly variable, with many studies not being able to show an advantage of one form of augmented feedback over another, nor over the classic form of training without augmented feedback, or even against no training at all ( 36 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 82 ). Despite the varying and occasionally conflicting results, most studies suggest that augmented feedback can be beneficial in motor learning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor learning in golf—a systematic review

Barzyk,

Gruber

2024

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Golf is a sport that consists of complex movement skills that need to be executed with utmost precision. Consequently, motor skill learning plays a crucial role in golf, and large numbers of studies address various methods of motor learning. In the present review, we give a systematic overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on motor learning of golf-specific motor skills. Three electronic databases were searched for RCTs looking at the effect of at least one learning method on performance in a golf-specific motor task. We grouped the studies depending on the learning strategies “cognitive training”, “practice scheduling”, “augmented feedback”, “implicit and explicit learning” and “focus of attention”. Fifty-two RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Superior methods within their respective strategies were an external focus of attention and increasing contextual interference, as well as errorless learning. For “cognitive training” and “augmented feedback”, no single method can be considered the most favorable. The overall biggest limitations were the lack of statistical power for more than half of the RCTs, and the fact that most studies of the present review investigated simple putting tasks in novices only. Although we have shown superiority of specific learning methods, transferability of the recommendations that can be derived from simple golf tasks in novices to sport-specific tasks in advanced players still has to be demonstrated and require study designs with the intention to provide practical recommendations for coaches and athletes in the sport of golf.

show abstract

The Effect of Gradual Self-Control of Task Difficulty and Feedback on Learning Golf Putting

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Meta-Analytic Findings of the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

Meta-Analytic Findings of the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

Meta-Analytic Findings in the Self-Controlled Motor Learning Literature: Underpowered, Biased, and Lacking Evidential Value

Motor learning in golf—a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About