Trial reportPloS one2026
Comparing the effects of analogical instruction with internal and external focus of attention on golf putting skill learning in children with developmental coordination disorder: Emphasizing mental representation structure.
Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of implicit learning-based instruction-analogy, external focus (EF), and their combination-on golf putting performance and learning in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Given that internal focus of attention often competes with external focus by drawing attention to body movements, combining analogy with EF may help direct attention externally by simplifying movement execution. Sixty children aged 7-9 with DCD were randomly assigned to five groups: analogical instruction, EF, internal focus (IF), analogical-external focus (A-EF), and control. The IF group focused on their striking hand; the EF group focused on the putter's path and target. The analogical group performed a pendulum-like swing based on a biomechanical metaphor. The A-EF group combined the pendulum analogy with EF instructions. The control group received no instructional cues. Participants completed a pretest, followed by three acquisition sessions (3 × 20 trials per session), immediate and delayed retention tests (72 hours post-practice), a transfer test (from a 5.5-meter distance), and an automaticity test under dual-task conditions. Results showed that, collapsed across acquisition sessions, both the external focus (EF) and combined analogy-external focus (A-EF) groups significantly outperformed the internal focus (IF) group. In retention, transfer, and dual-task performance, all three implicit learning groups (A, EF, A-EF) performed significantly better than the IF and control groups. These findings suggest that implicit instructional methods, particularly the combined approach, enhance motor learning in children with DCD, likely due to reduced reliance on working memory and greater automaticity of movement execution.
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.