The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task

Collective efficacy is an important determinant of the motivation of individuals within groups, with increases in collective efficacy producing more effort in a task and greater persistence when faced with failure. To test hypotheses concerning the impact of collective efficacy on effort and persistence, participants (n = 22) were assigned to triads (consisting of the participant and two confederates) and performed three time trials on cycle ergometers. After trial 1, the participants were assigned to either a high or low collective efficacy condition, receiving appropriate bogus performance feedback. All groups received failure feedback after trial 2. Effort was assessed by performance time and maximum heart rate (HRmax) achieved during performance. A 2 (collective efficacy condition) x 3 (trials) analysis of variance with repeated measures on trials revealed significant interaction effects for both performance time and HRmax. Fisher's least significant difference post-hoc tests indicated that, following efficacy manipulation, groups low in collective efficacy significantly reduced both their performance time and HRmax, whereas groups high in collective efficacy maintained performance and HRmax. However, predictions concerning the impact of failure on persistence were not supported. Our results provide partial support for the role of collective efficacy in team sports.     

A systematic approach to analysing sports performance

A systematic approach to the analysis of sporting events is discussed. The basic tenet is that objective quantification of critical events is required for a complete analysis. This approach encompasses diverse areas of methodology and research, such as quantification, biomechanics and physiology. The theoretical underpinning are behavioural, in so far as athletes produce observable behaviour that can be quantified and ultimately changed. Several areas of analysis are linked together in a general framework and each one of these areas is dealt with in detail.     

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) among adolescent athletes

The aim of the present study was to examine the factorial validity of the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS; Thomas et al., 1999) among adolescent athletes using confirmatory factor analysis. The TOPS was designed to assess eight psychological strategies used in competition (i.e. activation, automaticity, emotional control, goal-setting, imagery, negative thinking, relaxation and self-talk,) and eight used in practice (the same strategies except negative thinking is replaced by attentional control). National-level athletes (n = 584) completed the 64-item TOPS during training camps. Fit indices provided partial support for the overall measurement model for the competition items (robust comparative fit index = 0.92, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.88, root mean square error of approximation = 0.05) but minimal support for the training items (robust comparative fit index = 0.86, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.81, root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). For the competition items, the automaticity, goal-setting, relaxation and self-talk scales showed good fit, whereas the activation, emotional control, imagery and negative thinking scales did not. For the practice items, the attentional control, emotional control, goal-setting, imagery and self-talk scales showed good fit, whereas the activation, automaticity and relaxation scales did not. Overall, it appears that the factorial validity of the TOPS for use with adolescents is questionable at present and further development is required.     

Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review

BACKGROUND: Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally. METHODS: Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated. RESULTS: The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods.     

The effect of ball carrying method on sprint speed in rugby union football players

Different methods of ball carrying can be used when a player runs with the ball in rugby union. We examined how three methods of ball carrying influenced sprinting speed: using both hands, under the left arm and under the right arm. These methods were compared with running without the ball. Our aim was to determine which method of ball carrying optimizes sprinting speed. Altogether, 48 rugby union players (age 21 +/- 2 years, height 1.83 +/- 0.1 m, body mass 85.3 +/- 12 kg, body fat 14 +/- 5%; mean +/- s) were recruited. The players performed twelve 30-m sprints in total (each player performed three trials under each of three methods of carrying the ball and sprinting without the ball). The design of the study was a form of Latin rectangle, balanced across the trial order for each of the methods and for pairwise combinations of the methods in blocks of four per trial. Each sprint consisted of a 10-m rolling start, followed by a 20-m timed section using electronic timing gates. Compared with sprinting 20 m without the ball (2.58 +/- 0.16 s), using both hands (2.62 +/- 0.16 s) led to a significantly slower time (P < 0.05). Sprinting 20 m with the ball under the left arm (2.61 +/- 0.15 s) or under the right arm (2.60 +/- 0.17 s) was significantly quicker than when using 'both hands' (P < 0.05), and both these methods were significantly slower than when running without the ball (P < 0.05). Accordingly, running with the ball in both hands led to the greatest decrement in sprinting performance, although carrying the ball under one arm also reduced the players' sprinting ability. Our results indicate that to gain a speed advantage players should carry the ball under one arm.