What Was The Rationale For Doing The Study (2 Marks)

1) What was the rationale for doing the study? (2 marks)

In sport psychology, there is a significant amount of research showing that sport performance can be improved using mental skills and training programs. The purpose of this study was to find the effects that mental training has on track & field performance and mental skills.

2) Briefly explain the design of the study (2 marks)

This study was a multiple baseline design across the subjects for track and field performance, and observations collected were for all the subjects taking part in the study. The intervention only took place for one participant at a time while the others were still in baseline phase. The process continued until all the subjects had received an intervention.

The questionnaire included several psychological skills which included goal setting, mental imagery, arousal control, self-talk and relaxation techniques. From the results of the questionnaire, the researchers conducted interviews with the participants, which allowed them to expand on their answers from the questioannire. After the intervention, the participants were observed for several trails and when there was a stability in performance the treatment was introduced. The treatment phase included a different amount of observation sessions for each of the participants. Participant 1 had six observation sessions, participant two had five observation sessions, participant three had four observation sessions and participant four had three observation sessions. After the completion of the intervention and treatment phase, the participants were given the mental skills questionnaire again.

4) What outcomes were measured? (2 marks)

In this study, there were two outcomes that were measured. The first outcome was the Hardy and Nelson’s mental skills questionnaire to measure mental skills. The questionnaire measures imagery ability, mental preparation ability, self-confidence level, anxiety and worry management, concentration ability and relaxation ability. The second outcome was recorded separately for each participant as they all had a different event they took part in. The events that recorded were long

Participant 1 (Long jump) and participant 2 (Hammer throw) both showed an improvement in all six of the factors. Participant 3 (shot putter) showed an improvement in four factors, except for self-confidence and concentration ability. Participant 4 showed an improvement in five of the factors measures, except concentration ability, which decreased.

6) How confident are you in the findings being reported? Please explain your answer (3 marks)

Reading this study, I am confident with the findings that were reported. First off, before conducting the study the participants were given the Hardy and Nelson’s mental skills questionnaire to complete. From the results of this mental skills questionnaire, the participants were chosen if they had achieved low scores. This is a good strategy because you’re not mixing together participants from both low and high scores and using participants from low mental skills is a good way to see if they made an improvement in the duration of the study. The second reason I am confident in the findings being reported is because the participants did not directly go into the treatment phase. Before going into the treatment phase, the participants were observed for several trials. When a stability had been achieved in performance only then was the treatment introduced. The last reason why I am confident with the findings being reported is because aside