File(s) stored somewhere else
Please note: Linked content is NOT stored on La Trobe and we can't guarantee its availability, quality, security or accept any liability.
Movement competency training delivery: at school or online? A pilot study of high-school athletes
journal contributionposted on 2021-01-06, 00:51 authored by Simon A Rogers, Peter Hassmén, Alexandra RobertsAlexandra Roberts, Alison Alcock, Wendy L Gilleard, John S Warmenhoven
Movement competency (MC) development of high-school athletes can prepare them for the requirements of physical preparation training and the demands of sport. The aim of this study was to explore the physical effects of and athlete compliance to coach-led versus self-directed training approaches in this population. Thirty-nine high-school athletes (19 male, 14.5 ± 0.3 years old; 20 female, 14.6 ± 0.3 years) were allocated into two groups for a physical preparation program to improve MC. Groups were prescribed either (i) one face-to-face and one online (F2F, n = 18), or (ii) two online (OL, n = 21) sessions per week for 16-weeks. Before and after the intervention, the Athlete Introductory Movement Screen (AIMS) was used to assess MC alongside common physical capacity measures (triple-hop, star-excursion balance, medicine ball throw, 40 m sprint and countermovement jump). Dropout left 22 participants with pre-post physical scores. Compliance with online training was low and F2F session attendance moderate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to assess participant perceptions following the intervention. Assessing individual responses, the F2F group had a higher proportion of positive responders to AIMS scores, yet capacity measures were inconclusive across groups. Face-to-face coaching when acquiring MCs as part of physical preparation, may provide greater positive perceptions towards training compared to self-directed online prescriptions, and thereby greater compliance.