ArticlePloS one2023
Do verbal coaching cues and analogies affect motor skill performance in youth populations?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Acute Effects of Internal, External, and Golf-Specific Attentional Focus Cues on Isometric Trunk Strength in Youth Golfers.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- A 16-week school-based intervention improves physical fitness in Slovenian children: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe way coaching cues are worded can impact on the quality with which a subsequent motor skill is executed. However, there have been few investigations on the effect of coaching cues on basic motor skill performance in youths.
methodAcross several international locations, a series of experiments were undertaken to determine the effect of external coaching cues (EC), internal coaching cues (IC), analogies with a directional component (ADC) and neutral control cues on sprint time (20 m) and vertical jump height in youth performers. These data were combined using internal meta-analytical techniques to pool results across each test location. This approach was amalgamated with a repeated-measures analysis to determine if there were any differences between the ECs, ICs and ADCs within the different experiments.
results173 participants took part. There were no differences between the neutral control and experimental cues in any of the internal meta-analyses except where the control was superior to the IC for vertical jump (d = -0.30, [-0.54, -0.05], p = 0.02). Just three of eleven repeated-measures analyses showed significant differences between the cues at each experimental location. Where significant differences were noted, the control cue was most effective with some limited evidence supporting the use of ADCs (d = 0.32 to 0.62).
conclusionThese results suggest the type of cue or analogy provided to a youth performer has little subsequent effect on sprint or jump performance. Accordingly, coaches might take a more specific approach that is suited to the level or preferences of a particular individual.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.