Jump and sprint cues.

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.研究目的：教练员指导语的措辞方式会影响后续运动技能的完成质量，但目前针对青少年基础运动技能表现中指导语影响的相关研究仍较为匮乏。 研究方法：本研究在多个国际地区开展一系列实验，旨在探究外部指导语（external coaching cues, EC）、内部指导语（internal coaching cues, IC）、带方向性成分的类比提示（analogies with a directional component, ADC）以及中性对照提示，对青少年运动员20米短跑时长与垂直跳高度的影响。研究采用元分析技术整合各实验地点的数据以合并不同测试场景下的结果，并结合重复测量分析方法，探究不同实验中EC、IC与ADC之间是否存在性能差异。 研究结果：本研究共招募173名受试者。所有元分析结果均显示，中性对照提示与各类实验指导语间无显著差异，仅在垂直跳测试中，中性对照提示的效果优于内部指导语（效应量d=-0.30，95%置信区间[-0.54, -0.05]，p=0.02）。11项重复测量分析中仅3项在各实验地点显示不同指导语间存在显著差异；在存在显著差异的场景中，中性对照提示效果最优，同时存在有限证据表明ADC的效果具有一定优势（d=0.32~0.62）。 研究结论：本研究结果表明，向青少年运动员提供的指导语或类比提示类型，对其短跑与跳跃表现的后续影响十分有限。据此，教练员可采用更具针对性的指导方式，以适配特定个体的运动水平与个人偏好。