evaluating the efficacy of traditional performance enhancement interventions.pptx

IMPORTANT ASPECT TO KEEP IN MIND FOR DOING RESEARCHES AND EVEIDENT BASED STRATEGIES TO BE USED IN PRACTICE

1. EVALUATING THE EFFICACY OF TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT INTERVENTIONS DR.SONIA KAPUR

2. INTRODUCTION: The primary focus of sports psychology has long been to identify and understand theories and techniques that can be applied to sport and exercise to enhance the performance of athletes and participants in physical activity. Traditional performance enhancement techniques such as goal setting, imagery, self –talk and arousal regulation are believed to help ahtletes achieve consistently high performance and peak performance states.

3. CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATION OF EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED INTERVENTIONS Well-Established Interventions. Probably Efficacious Interventions. Experimental Treatments.

4. Well-Established Interventions The highest level of empirical support is well-established. Only randomized controlled between-group designs and single-case designs with intervention comparison are eligible for this designation. It must also meet additional criteria, depending on the experimental design.

5. I). For studies that utilized a randomized control between-group design ,”at least two good between –group design experiments must demonstrate efficacy in one or more of the following ways.” A). The intervention must demonstrate , superiority to pill or psychotherapy placebo or to other treatment. B). The intervention must demonstrate, equivalence to already established treatment with adequate sample sizes. OR

6. II). A large series of single-case design experiments must demonstrate efficacy with the following:- A). Use of good experimental design. B). Comparison of intervention to another treatment. Further criteria for both I and II III. Experiments must be conducted with treatment manuals . IV. Characteristics of the client samples must be clearly specified. V. Effects must have been demonstrated by at least two different investigators or investigating teams.

7. PROBABLY EFFICACIOUS INTERVENTIONS The second level of empirical support is probably efficacious. Interventions are classified in this category when only one of three criteria has been fulfilled(among randomized controlled between-group designs or single-case designs with intervention comparison). I. The two experiments must show that the treatment is superior to waiting-list control group. OR II. One or more experiments must meet well established criteria IA or IB, III and IV above but V is not met. OR III. A small series of single-case design experiments must meet well established treatment criteria.

8. EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTIONS The third and lowest level of empirical support is experimental. This designation includes interventions that have not been adequately tested in experimental traits meeting methodological standards established by the committee. Interventions in this category, therefore, have yet to demonstrate efficacy, and therefore not empirically supported.

9. Efficacy of traditional performance enhancement interventions The systematic research evaluation demonstrated consistent findings across the goal setting , imagery, self-talk, arousal regulations and multicomponent intervention modalities. For empirical studies utilizing competitive athletes, results were unequivocal for all single interventions, and contradictory findings only existed among the multicomponent packages. Meyers and colleagues stated, ‘non competitive performance assessments, therefore, appear to overestimate the effectiveness of the treatment.” There are mainly 5 performance enhancement interventions:-

10. Goal Setting It has been stated that ‘the predicted impact of goal setting on physical performance has not been verified.’ (Meyers et.al.,1996) and that ‘the efficacy of goal setting in sport remains, by and large untested and unsupported’(Strean and Roberts,1992). Burton, Holliday (2001) stated that their research review led to the, ‘unmistakable conclusion’ that ‘goal setting is an effective performance enhancement strategy. Although goal-setting is one of the most widely researched and practiced interventions in sport psychology, Moore’s study suggests that this procedure has been advocated well beyond the level of empirical validation necessary to ethically and responsibly incorporate it into standard practice.

11. Continue….. Infact , in Moore’s study, goal setting receives status only as an experimental intervention, given the complete absence of positive outcomes in well-designed studies utilizing the target population. Four analogue studies suggested intervention efficacy, 13 studies of similar methodological quality demonstrated contradictory findings. Thus, even analogue studies suggest limited support for goal setting.

12. Imagery The complete absence of positive performance enhancing effects among the studies reviewed by Moore strongly indicated that there is currently no empirical evidence to suggest that imagery of an efficacious intervention for athletic performance enhancement. Research on mental practice has been extensive, but leads to few conclusive findings, a number of trends and a variety of inconsistent results. Applying the established criteria for empirical support to the studies collected on imagery with competitive athletes determined that imagery must be characterized as an experimental intervention. Analogue study, six studies demonstrating significant positive outcomes and 10 demonstrating non significant outcomes.

13. Self-Talk Few research studies have evaluated self-talk for the direct enhancement of athletic performance. However, the number of empirical studies reviewed by Moore was adequate to determine its level empirical support. Although several literature reviews support for this intervention, Moore’s study suggests that the empirical data collected to date do not support the use of self-talk. Infact, based on the complete absence of positive outcomes when used with the target population, self-talk is also categorized as an experimental intervention. The positive results found among analogue studies were unable to alter this categorization. Yet despite the limited number of empirical studies and the lack efficacy support, self-talk is often utilized and received prominent attention.

14. Arousal Regulation Arousal regulation strategies such as psyching up and relaxation enjoy popularity and support from anecdotal reports, correlational literature and systematic literature reviews. Although coachs and sport psychologist teach arousal regulation techniques to athletes, little quality empirical research has been conducted supporting their efficacy and effectiveness. Moore suggest that arousal regulation must also be categorized as an experimental intervention, as quality empirical studies do not show performance enhancing effects.

15. Continue…. The lack of empirical support is not a novel assertion among sports psychology professionals ,who have stated that, ‘support for the possible instrumental role of increased arousal in performance improvement has remained tentative’ and that ‘caution is warranted in interpreting results because of the failure to establish casual relationships between relaxing training and improved performance in much of the research’.

16. Multicomponent Interventions As the use of individual performance enhancement interventions has grown, research have begun incorporating multiple interventions into combination packages in order to provide athlete’s with numerous techniques for improving performance. Moore do not fulfill the criteria for a formal determination of empirical support, and thus categorized as experimental intervention. First, three multicomponent studies showed promise , finding that packages consisting of goal setting, imagery, self-talk and relaxation enhanced competitive performance

17. Continue…. Although visuo-motor behavioral rehearsal is currently experimental, contradictory yet somewhat promising results with competitive athletes warrant further well-designed research .VMBR is a replicable protocol that may enhance performance with competitive athletes. Formal empirical support is clearly lacking, the specific reasons for this lack of efficacy are currently unclear and may include a number of possibilities. First, support may lack because the interventions do not target the necessary elements or variables of optimal performance, are theoretically unsound, or are turly ineffective.

18. Continue… ….. Second, the interventions may not be delivered in an optimal manner or dose. Third, applying interventions to individuals or groups without considering individual needs and personal characteristics may mask the potential positive effects. Fourth , small sample sizes, often a result of practical realities, may not provide empirical studies with the statistical power necessarily to obtain significance. Finally, the lack of empirical efficacy may result form failure to adhere to clear intervention protocols or to rigorous scientific and methodological standards.

19. Thank you