WHERE EVIDENCE MEETS PRACTICE

Transcription

1 Vol. 2 ISSUE No. 3 SUMMER 2014 Editor Matthew T. Buns, PhD Minnesota State University, Mankato (507) matthew.buns@mnsu.edu Editorial Board WHERE EVIDENCE MEETS PRACTICE The Track and Cross Country Journal is a refereed scientific journal published with the goal of advancing track and cross country knowledge through research and expertise. The Track and Cross Country Journal seeks to provide readers with up-to-date information comprising advances in all areas of track & field and cross country. Published articles include both detailed scientific manuscripts and "Coaches Notes" geared towards coaches, allowing for immediate application in the field. Care to be a contributor? Contact us at James Bemiller, JD University of Tennessee (865) jimb@utk.edu W. Brent Edwards, PhD University of Calgary (312) wbedward@ucalgary.ca Ross Miller, PhD Queen's University (613) rm111@queensu.ca Erik Lind, PhD SUNY-Cortland (607) erik.lind@cortland.edu Neil M. Johannsen, PhD Pennington Biomedical Research Center (225) neil.johannsen@pbrc.edu Robin Hardin, PhD University of Tennessee (865) robh@utk.edu

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Self-Efficacy in Track and Field Athletes: Coaching the Mental Edge Mark Gymburch and Erik Lind.251 Deep Water Running: Effects on Trained Middle Distance Runners Christopher Smith and Douglas Boatwright..258 Torsion Angles in Discus Throwing Andreas Maheras Goal-Setting Revision, Effectiveness, and Frequency in the Multi-Event in Track and Field Brian Beeman, Linda A. Keeler, Kevin Patton, and Traci Ciaponi SUBSCRIBE TODAY FOR EACH PURCHASE, THE TRACK AND CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL WILL DONATE $1 TO THE JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION (JDRF). TRACK AND CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL SUNSET BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

3 Self-Efficacy in Track and Field Athletes: Coaching the Mental Edge Mark Gymburch 1, and Erik Lind 2 1 Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Ithaca College 2 Department of Kinesiology, SUNY College at Cortland Abstract: In order to be mentally ready to compete and put forth an optimal performance in track and field, athletes must be confident in themselves and have a high level of self-esteem. Above this, an athlete must possess something more specific, a high level of self-efficacy. The goal of this article is to teach coaches what the concept of self-efficacy is and how they can find sources of it and apply it to their athletes. Self-efficacy, in and of itself, has been shown to be a better predictor of performance than just outcome expectations (goal setting) before a performance, and as good of a predictor as anxiety levels (Gernigon & Dolloye, 2003). It is one of the most important, situation specific, mental aspects that a track and field coach can instill within their athletes. It is crucial to coach a mental edge in athletes because as stated earlier with physiological factors, mental factors can overrule physical ones. Coaching athletes, especially track and field athletes, cannot end with physically preparing them; a strong mental state of self-efficacy must accompany them in order to achieve the highest, optimal performance. Introduction Track and field is one of the most diverse sporting events in the field of competitive athletics. It is even unfair to call it a sporting event, as it contains over two dozen disciplines within itself. Despite the diversity within the ranks of the sport, the goal of every event is still the same: to achieve optimal performance during competition. In almost every case, an athlete does not achieve this on his or her own. At their side is a person(s) who must guide them to achieving this optimal level of performance: the coach. Achieving optimal performance in any sport, let alone track and field, requires physical discipline. In order to compete and be successful, a coach must teach an athlete how to train his or her body to be in the top physical condition it can be in for their related event; whether it be strength and power in the throws and jumps events, speed in the sprint events, or aerobic conditioning in the distance events. However, these are only the things that show to the outsider watching the performance. There is another aspect to high performance that is behind the scenes, so to say, that being mental discipline. Mental discipline is not as easy to achieve as many people might think. Many coaches in the past have only thought of this as being mentally tough and nothing beyond it. It is much more than this, however. Many coaches and people overlook the complexity of the field of sport psychology when they think about coaching their athletes. History shows this, as it has only within the last few decades become a recognized discipline with a governing body with the foundation of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology in 1986, becoming what it is currently the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, in 2007 (Smith & Bar-Eli, 2007). This is compared to the study of physiology, which has been around for hundreds of years. 251 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

4 This brings us to the topic of this article, to provide coaches with a way to coach mental readiness and show why it can be just as crucial as physical readiness. A coach should not have to be a sport psychologist in order to realize how important is to performance to have a mental edge in track and field. In order to be mentally ready to compete and put forth an optimal performance in track and field, athletes must be confident in themselves and have a high level of self-esteem. Above this, an athlete must possess something more specific, a high level of selfefficacy. The goal of this article is to teach coaches what the concept of self-efficacy is and how they can find sources of it and apply it to their athletes. Self-efficacy, in and of itself, has been shown to be a better predictor of performance than just outcome expectations (goal setting) before a performance, and as good of a predictor as anxiety levels (Gernigon & Dolloye, 2003). It is one of the most important, situation specific, mental aspects that a track and field coach can instill within their athletes. Operationalizing and Conceptualizing Self-Efficacy Before discussing the sources of selfefficacy in track and field athletes, one must first understand what exactly it is, and how it is set apart from other psychological definitions. Albert Bandura, the founder of the concept, defines selfefficacy as the belief a person has in their ability to complete an objective successfully in order to obtain a specific goal (Bandura, 1977). In other words, someone with high self-efficacy has an unquestionable belief in their ability to go out and do something in order to achieve their goal. It is very specific to the task at hand and at that time, therefore, in this case it must be very specific to the athlete in regards to their sport of track and field. Upon reading this definition, one might think that it is just another word for selfconfidence, self-esteem, outcome expectations or another interchangeable word. This, however, is not the case. As stated above, self-efficacy is a term that is specifically related to the task at hand. In order to grasp this, some time must be taken to separate it from its would be synonyms. The difference between self-efficacy and self-confidence can be discrete and hard to understand to anyone who is not familiar with the terms, but it is a stark, and important difference that must be understood in order to coach it. Confidence, first and foremost, is a general term about a broad subject. One can be confident in many things, even including failure. Someone can be confident about a lot of things, a track athlete for example may be confident that they are going to run bad and not achieve their goal. Efficacy, however, does not have that possible negative side. It is also specific to the task at hand, whereas confidence may spill over to many different areas of life, not focusing on a single event. The most important thing to take away from the difference between the two is that confidence allows room for failure, but a person with high self-efficacy believes they will go out and succeed in their task no matter what (Bandura, 1997). A difference must also be established between self-efficacy and self-esteem. Once again, this focusses around the specificity that is selfefficacy. Self-esteem, essentially, is a value of selfworth. It can apply to a lot of different areas in one s life, all of which may never cross over and effect the other. For instance, a track and field athlete may have high self-esteem in the classroom and in their social life, but may still not care and perform poorly on the track without affecting that self-esteem. Self-efficacy, once again, deals solely with the task at hand; and cannot cross over to other areas. As evidence for this, Sherer and Madux (1982) found in their study that there was actually a negative correlation between self-esteem and self-efficacy within the athletes that they tested. One final distinction must be made in terms of defining self-efficacy, and that is the 252 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

5 difference between it and outcome-expectancy. This difference can be understood by looking at the one as half of an equation, and the other as the entire equation. Outcome expectancy is the belief that if you perform something a certain way, then the outcome will be a certain way resulting from that performance. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is the conviction that one can do that performance successfully, and that the successful performance will yield a favorable result. It is essentially outcome-expectancy, plus the part that has to happen before it; and the belief that the outcome will be positive no matter what (Gernigon et al., 2003). Sources of Self-Efficacy Now that self-efficacy has been defined and set apart from anything else, the major questions and main focus of this article can be addressed. How does a coach find sources of selfefficacy, and how does he or she coach and instill it within their athlete? As it is, there are four main sources of self-efficacy: mastery experience, modeling, social persuasion, and physiological factors (Bandura, 1977). Mastery/Past Performance Mastery experience, or an accomplishment in a past performance, is the first source of selfefficacy in an athlete. It is also the most powerful source of high self-efficacy in an athlete, as it is driven by themselves (Bandura, 1977). Simply put, success breeds success. The successful completion of a task will raise future self-efficacy, and likewise, the unsuccessful completion will lower it. This has to do with mental processing that occurs when one has completed a task once. People process, weigh and integrate diverse sources of information concerning their capabilities. They then regulate their choice behavior and effort expenditure on the basis of the perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, Adams & Beyer, 1977). In other words, a completed successful task can influence the amount of effort and success in a future task. With this in mind, completion of these successful tasks, however, cannot be an easy, repetitive feat. In a study done on swimmers, there was a negative correlation between high self-efficacy levels and motivation to complete tasks when the goals being set were too low (Miller, 1993). In order to keep motivation at a high level and promote continually increasing levels of self-efficacy, one must keep the goals and tasks at a high level. The coach s role in this source of selfefficacy is to provide this opportunity for the athlete. In track and field specifically, this can be done in many ways. The first, and most obvious way is with prior competition. A good way to start this is to set an athlete up in an event at a low key meet, and breed the environment for success. Success in small meets like this will build efficacy for larger meets in the future. Consistently reminding the athlete of these past performances is also a key role of the coach. Another way to build efficacy through mastery experience is at practice. Specifically with distance runners, this can be done through workouts. In one of the most widely used training systems in the country, interval workouts are done as a primary workout for the week and are done at a pace to build VO2 max, which is essentially 5K race pace. An example workout of this would break down to 8x1000 meters at 5K race pace with short jogs in between (Daniels, 2005). This is an extremely challenging and taxing workout, but it is a pace that should be what an athlete can run for a 5K. They can draw on the mastery experience of completing this workout to build self-efficacy for a future race. Likewise for jumpers and throwers, mastery experience can easily be simulated at practice. Unlike distance athletes, a lot of their practice can be simulating meet day actions. Thus, completion of a certain distance or mark at practice can provide mastery experience for them. Once again, making the athlete aware of this source is just as important as the coach realizing it themselves. 253 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

6 Modeling/Vicarious Experience The next source of self-efficacy is modeling, or vicarious experience. This is basically mastery experience, accept through watching another person. This is especially important with less experienced athletes, as they will often use the success and judgment of others to validate their own success (Gernigon, et al., 2003). Watching others complete a task successfully will increase an athlete s own self-efficacy, and watching others fail at a task will likewise lower self-efficacy (Madux, 1995). Self-modeling, or observing one s self perform successfully repeated times, has also been shown to increase self-efficacy and performance in sports such as hockey (Feltz, Short & Singlton, 2008). Once again, the role of the coach in this source of self-efficacy is to provide the opportunity to the athlete. Modeling, specifically self-modeling, can be extremely helpful with increasing an athlete s self-efficacy when it comes to running with proper form. Watching and critiquing video of one s self and others running properly will lead to the belief that they can continuously do it properly. This source of selfefficacy is, however, probably best used in more technical events, such as jumping and throwing. Watching others perform the complicated movement sequences and the successful performances that result with the successful completion of the movements can enhance the athlete s self-efficacy about performing the same task. As a coach, one can provide this by bringing a video tape to track meets, having an athlete watch a more skilled teammate perform, or simply by directing them to videos and coverage of professional events. However, it is best to keep modeling within the same level of competition, as past studies have shown that the modeling source is most effective when used with athletes with similarities to the athlete in question (Weiss, McCullagh, Smith & Berlant, 1998). Social Persuasion The third source of self-efficacy, social persuasion, is the verbal encouragement from another. This source most often directly comes from the coach. Although it can come from another athlete or parent, the strength of social persuasion as an effective booster of self-efficacy depends on the prestige, credibility, expertise and trustworthiness of the persuader (Gernigon et al., 2003). On most teams, hopefully, that persuader is indeed the coach. One must tread carefully when using this source however, as Bandura (1977) explains that negative effects on self-efficacy from verbal persuasions have more of an impact and a quicker impact on an athlete than positive effects do. Therefore, it is essential to be consistent with positive feedback, as one negative verbal comment could potentially have a larger effect on an athlete s self-efficacy than a stream of positive persuasion. Verbal persuasion from a coach must be sincere and believable, as well. Persuaders must cultivate people s beliefs in their capabilities while at the same time ensuring that the envisioned success is attainable (Pajares, 1997). It is just as important to be realistic with athletes as it is to be positively persuasive, as unrealistic goals and persuasions will ultimately lead to failure in the goal, thereby reducing self-efficacy through negative mastery experience, which as discussed earlier, is the most powerful source of selfefficacy. In the sport of track and field, verbal persuasion is very similar to any other sport. The easiest way to do this is to remind the athlete of the other two previously mentioned sources of self-efficacy. Use the evidence. Remind them of what they have done because as stated before, previous mastery experience is the most powerful source of self-efficacy, and reinforcing this through verbal persuasion will only make them all the more strong mentally. It is once again important to use this realistically, however, and this can be done through setting realistic goal times in races, 254 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

7 marks in throws and jumps, etc. Physiological Interpretation The last source of self-efficacy, but certainly not the least important, is that of physiological factors. Simply stated, this has to do with the athletes perceptions of the physiological effects associated with exercise and exertion, such as nervousness, aches and pains, exhaustion, etc., on how they will affect their performance. These factors can have an effect on an athlete s perceived self-efficacy depending on their current emotional state. A person with high self-efficacy will view these at face value: an effect of exercise; whereas a person with low self-efficacy will think more into and let these physical signs be viewed as a sign that they cannot complete the task (Bandura, 1997). Self-Efficacy and Fatigue It is the coach s job to get the athlete to a point where he or she will view these physiological factors positively, and even be able to apply them to a better performance. There are several studies that demonstrate the possibility of performing well and overcoming physiological perceptions during negative physiological effects. A main focus for distance runners centers around the central nervous system. Tim Noakes has been at the forefront of this research. His research supports the idea that the central nervous system plays a large role in regulating exercise output. This research has formed his professional stance against the peripheral fatigue model presented by A.V. Hill in 1923, saying that the central nervous system is the principle limiting factor in performance (Noakes, T. D., 2011). He established the central governor model, which revolves around the idea that when oxygenation of the heart, brain and other organs reaches a dangerous level, the brain will begin to shut down systems (muscles and heart work output, etc.) in order to terminate the effort (Noakes, 2002). However, with mental training and experience, and in certain situations, this limiting factor can be overridden. This helps to explain many situations that cannot be fully understood with the idea that metabolic and peripheral fatigue are the only limiting factors. An example of this would be how at the end of an all-out endurance effort, runners have the ability to have a finishing kick at the end even though they are metabolically depleted and have been slowing down throughout the effort. A coach who realizes this can teach their athlete that the brain will try to terminate a run long before the body has exhausted the ability to perform, and the athlete who competes with this in mind will have a higher level of self-efficacy when these factors set in, leading to a more successful performance. A second example of how physiological factors can be used as a source of self-efficacy can be applied specifically to more explosive events. This has to do with the term post activation potential (PAP). Physiologically defined, PAP is a phenomenon that involves increased muscle performance output during a short time frame (less than 4min) after a high intensity warm up. It is an interesting phenomenon due to the fact that common sense would make one think that one would be tired and not perform as well after an initial, high intensity activity. However, several studies have shown this not to be the case in many instances. According to DeRenne (2010), there are two main physiological mechanisms that are responsible for this. The first one involves the high intensity warm-up increasing phosphorylation of light chain myosin in the muscle, thereby increasing cross bridge rate within the muscle. The second involves increasing the activity in the spinal cord between afferent and alpha motor neurons. The combination of these two factors results in PAP (DeRenne, 2010). Gerasimos Terzis et al. (2009) conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of PAP on shot put by using drop jumps as a warm-up. After an intense warm-up of several drop jumps, a significant increase in throwing distance was noted in male throwers. Rixon (2007) conducted another 255 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

8 study with jumping using a PAP eliciting warm-up. He found that after a maximal isometric squat warm-up, jump height was significantly higher in athletes compared to not using this type of warmup. This odd phenomenon is further proof that what an athlete is feeling physically is not the ultimate determinant of performance, as in this case; an exhaustive style of warm-up elicited unseen physiological characteristics that actually improved performance. A coach s job, once again is to show the athlete that these things are possible, and boost their self-efficacy through knowledge, education and practice of such things. Conclusion These four sources are the best and most proven ways to coach self-efficacy in athletes. However, learning how to coach self-efficacy begins by understanding what it really is. It is imperative to understand how self-efficacy is separate from self-confidence, self-esteem and outcome expectancies, as they are not the same thing and often do not go hand in hand. One word that should come to mind when trying to define self-efficacy is specific. It is specific to the situation, and in this case, the performance in a track and field event. Upon understanding self-efficacy, it is important for a coach to realize where its sources can be found and how they can be used. Every source begins with the coach instilling it within the athlete and helping him or her to realize exactly what they are. Opportunities for mastery experience and vicarious modeling should be provided by the coach in order to promote an environment for success. Verbal persuasion means the most when it is coming from the person on the team with the most prestige and influence: the coach. And the complexities of physiological factors and how to use them to an advantage must be understood and explained in order for the athlete to take full advantage of them in a situation, and for them to approach them from a view of high self-efficacy. As stated before, self-efficacy levels are an extremely reliable predictor or future performance. It is crucial to coach a mental edge in athletes because as stated earlier with physiological factors, mental factors can overrule physical ones. Coaching athletes, especially track and field athletes, cannot end with physically preparing them; a strong mental state of selfefficacy must accompany them in order to achieve the highest, optimal performance. References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), Bandura, A., Adams, N., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (3), Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Daniels, J. (2005). Daniels running formula. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. DeRenne, C. (2010). Effects of postactivation potentiation warm-up in male and female sport performances: a brief review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 32 (6), Feltz, D.L., Short, S.E., & Singleton, D.A. (2008). The effect of self-modeling on shooting performance and self-efficacy with intercollegiate hockey players. In M.P Simmons & L.P. Foster (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research advances (pp. 9-18). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Gernigon, C. & Delloye, J. (2003). Self-efficacy, causal attribution, and track athletic performance following unexpected success or failure among elite sprinters. The Sport Psychologist, 17 (1), TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

9 Madux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Selfefficacy, adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research and application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum. Miller, M. (1993). Efficacy strength and performance in competitive swimmers of different skill levels. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, Noakes, T. (2002). Lore of running: 4 th ed. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press. Noakes, T.D. (2011). Time to move beyond the brainless exercise physiology: The evidence for complex regulation of human exercise performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 36 (1), Pajares, F. (1997) Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M.Maehr & Pr.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rixon, K. P, Lamont, H. S., & Bemben, M. G. (2007). Influence of type of muscle contraction, gender, and lifting experience on postactivation potentiation performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(2), Sherer, M., Maddux, J. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, Smith, D. & Bar-Eli, M. (Eds). (2007). Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weiss, M.R., McCullagh, P., Smith, A.L., & Berlant, A.R. (1998). Observational learning and the fearful child: Influence of peer models on swimming skill performance and psychological responses. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

10 Deep Water Running: Effects on Trained Middle Distance Runners Christopher Smith and Douglas Boatwright Department of Health and Kinesiology, Lamar University Abstract: Deep water running allows trained athletes with musculoskeletal injuries to continue training and return to competition sooner. This is possible by reducing the amount of impact the major joints and injured areas would normal absorb. The use of a floatation device in a swimming pool allows for up to 90% of an athlete s weight to be supported. Cardiovascular output can be maintained if the individual s body is submerged above the xiphoid, as this leads to increased stroke volume. Training intensity should be maintained during the deep water running phase of rehabilitation. Continuous monitoring with either heart rate or lactate threshold tests should help maintain high levels of intensity and prevent an athlete from reducing their overall cardiac output and endurance levels. Cardiovascular Responses to Immersion When the body is immersed in water in an upright position, the thoracic cavity and abdominal area have a mean hydrostatic pressure of 20cm (15mmHg / atm) exerted upon them (Arborelius, Baildin, Lilja, & Lindgren, 1972) compared to a normal atmospheric pressure of 1 atm (Reilly et al., 2003). The hydrostatic forces exerted on the body during immersion cause a shift in blood compartments and further contribute to the increased central blood volume by adjusting intrathoracic pressures relative to the surrounding water pressure (Reilly et al., 2003). When an individual is immersed in water at rest, cardiac output has been reported to increase by 30-35%. This increase has been attributed to an elevated stroke volume which is related to an enhanced diastolic filling (Christie, Sheidahl, & Tristani, 1990; Reilly et al., 2003). In a study by Christie et al, (Christie et al., 1990) it was suggested that the increase in cardiac output during the immersion in water was caused by a reduction in myocardial contractility due to a decrease in peripheral vascular volume from transcapillary fluids shifting between the intravascular compartment and the extravascular compartment. When comparing land-based training to pool-based workouts, cardiac output increases at varying percentages depending on the degree of body immersion in water. For example, when the body is immersed in water to the hip, the cardiac output increases 10-15%. This is a result of overcompensation in stroke volume for the depression of the heart rate (Reilly et al., 2003). Increased systemic arterial pressure is another factor that can cause increased cardiac output. When immersion of the body reaches the xiphoid, more blood is displaced to the thoracic cavity, thus leading to a larger stroke volume and cardiac output due to the increase in abdominal compression. Furthermore, when the level of immersion reaches the chin, cardiac output continues to increase. This is as a result of increased arterial pressure triggered by the stimulations of arterial stretch receptors, which cause an increase in heart rate and stroke volume. Thus, it is clear from the literature that the 258 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURANL

11 magnitude of cardiovascular response depends on the degree of immersion in water (Reilly et al., 2003). Benefits of Deep Water Running Most running injuries are associated with the repetitive nature of ground-reaction forces incurred during foot contact. This foot contact carries from 5-10 times the body weight of the individual (Dale, 2007). Therefore, a rest from impact is necessary for tissue healing. Thus, deep water running is an appropriate supplement since it is a nonimpact alternative. This will prevent deconditioning of the cardiopulmonary and musculoskeletal systems as they will be used when adopting a deep water running program. Numerous studies have stated the benefits of deep water running when comparing it to land-based training. For example, pool training supports 90% of the athletes body weight, therefore allowing for the unloading of the major joints of the body (Aukerman, 2008; Dale, 2007). Another advantage to deep water running is the cardiovascular stresses are similar to running on land and the nervous system recruits specific muscles that are used during land training (Dale, 2007). A benefit of this would be the preservation of running performance which is of vital importance for functional rehabilitation. There is evidence that exchanging land based running for deep water running in a 4 week program maintains maximal oxygen consumption, lactate threshold, and 5 kilometre run time (Bushman et al., 1996; Dale, 2007). The study by Eyestone et al., (1993) provides evidence that the effects of a 6 week training programme in either deep water running or cycling can maintain maximal oxygen consumption 2 mile run time for trained individuals. Another benefit of deep water running is increased resistance on the body which can lead to valuable feedback about the athlete s running form. This resistance feedback is provided by the feeling against the athlete s arms, legs and feet as they move through the water. The resistance can be beneficial for maintaining strength, V02 max and improving the individual s running style and form. The water resistance increases strength by enlarging the body s surface area by using resistance cuffs on the feet and ankles of the athlete or by wearing webbed gloves (Aukerman, 2008). Pool-based deep water running can vary the training and make it more exciting, thus provide a psychological benefit instead of the athlete always using the same monotonous routes for their workouts which can lead to de-motivation, consequently a decline in performance (Aukerman, 2008). Running in the pool provides a change of scenery and allows for consistent training when weather conditions make outdoor running uncomfortable. Training Adaptations Training adaptations for trained athletes when undergoing the 6 week deep water running program were reported to have a similar effects to that of road running and cycling when performed at similar frequency, duration and intensity; leading to maximal oxygen consumption and 2 mile run time being maintained (Eyestone, Fellingham, & George, 1993). However, these similarities are only seen when the frequency, intensity and duration of the training were kept constant between the training modalities (Chu & Rhodes, 2001; Eyestone et al., 1993). Eyestone and co-workers (Eyestone et al., 1993) used an incremental training protocol for intensity and duration, while a more recent study by Bushman and co-workers (Bushman et al., 1996) used a subjective exercise intensity protocol dictated by the 259 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

12 Brennan Scale, which is a five point perceived exertion scale. Others have reported that using a 4 week deep water running program resulted in sufficient training stimulus to maintain onland running performance in well trained runners (Bushman et al., 1996; Chu & Rhodes, 2001). However, after the 4 week program no significant differences were observed in running economy, lactate threshold, maximal heart rate and VO2max. These findings correlate with those of Eyestone and coworkers (Eyestone et al., 1993) and Wilber and co-workers (Wilber, Moffatt, & Scott, 1996). It is clear that an optimal training program for deep water running should include: 1. Exercise intensity and duration that highly stimulates the cardiovascular system should be included. 2. Exercise intensity should be monitored using objectives measured for instance, maximal heart rate, lactate threshold and VO2max. 3. The optimum deep water training program should include incremental exercise intensities, frequencies and durations to match improving fitness as the program evolves (Bushman et al., 1996; Eyestone et al., 1993; Wilber et al., 1996). Conclusion Since deep water running is a means of reducing the possibilities of injury, it is an alternative to running on hard surfaces which can be responsible for many musculoskeletal injuries. When comparing land-based training to pool-based workouts, cardiac output increases at varying percentages depending on the degree of body immersion in water. 260 The potential benefit of deep water running includes the ability to provide a nonimpact based training environment during the rehabilitation phase of a musculoskeletal injury. In contrast to land-based training, feedback from the resistance provided by water can improve the athlete s knowledge of how the body responds to resistance in nonweight baring activity. References Arborelius, M., Baildin, U., Lilja, B., & Lindgren, C. (1972). Hemodynamic changes in man during immersion with head above water. Areospace Medicine, 43, Aukerman, M. (2008). Train smart with Deep water running. AMAA Journal Spring, Bushman, B., Flynn, M., Andres, F., Lambert, C., Taylor, M., & Braun, W. (1996). Effect of 4 wk of deep water run training on running performance. Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, Christie, J., Sheidahl, L., & Tristani, F. (1990). Cardiovasclar regulation during headout water immersion exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 69, Chu, K., & Rhodes, E. (2001). Physiological and Cardiovascular Changes Associated with Deep Water Runnig in the Young. Sports Med, 31(1), Dale, R. (2007). Deep Water Running for Injred Runners. Human Kinetics, 12(2), Eyestone, E., Fellingham, G., & George, J. (1993). The effect of water running and cycling on maximum oxygen consumption and 2-mile run performance. Am J Sports Med, 21, Reilly, T., Dowzer, C., & Cable, N. (2003). The physiology of deep-water running. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

13 Wilber, R., Moffatt, R., & Scott, B. (1996). Influence of water running on the maintenance of aerobic performance. Med Sci Sport Exercise, 28, TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

14 Torsion Angles in Discus Throwing Andreas Maheras Fort Hays State University Abstract: During the process of discus throwing, wound up positions are observed where the upper parts of the thrower and discus system rotate clockwise in relation to the lower parts. In other words, the hip axis rotates clockwise in relation to the line connecting the two feet, the shoulder axis is rotated clockwise in relation to the hip axis and the right arm is rotated clockwise in relation to the shoulder axis. Subsequently, the system unwinds and the upper parts catch up with the lower parts. During the process of discus throwing, wound up positions are observed where the upper parts of the thrower and discus system rotate clockwise in relation to the lower parts. In other words, the hip axis rotates clockwise in relation to the line connecting the two feet, the shoulder axis is rotated clockwise in relation to the hip axis and the right arm is rotated clockwise in relation to the shoulder axis. Subsequently, the system unwinds and the upper parts catch up with the lower parts. There are two main cycles of the wind-unwind sequence. The first is at the back of the circle, during the preliminary swings, where the upper parts of the system rotate clockwise in relation to the lower parts and a very wound up position is observed as the discus reaches its furthermost and backwards point. Following, the upper part unwinds until approximately the time the right foot lifts off the ground. Then, the lower parts of the body catch up and eventually get ahead and result in another wound up position as the thrower lands somewhere in the middle of the circle. The maximum value of this second wound up position occurs before the left foot touch down in the front of the circle. Finally, the system unwinds again resulting in a tremendous transfer of angular momentum from the thrower to the discus. There are a few torsion angles a practitioner can observe as part of a rudimental analysis of the throw. All angles are formed approximately during the second double support just before release. To form those angles, four lines can be drawn (Figure 1). Figure 1. The four lines (axes) that determine all possible torsion angles at the moment of maximum torsion of the system. The first line would pass through the middle of both feet, the second through the right and left hip joints, the third through the 262 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

15 right and left shoulder and the fourth through the right shoulder and the center of the discus. Figure 2 shows the six individual torsion angles that are formed as a result of those four lines. The lines show the degree and location of the system's wound up position. Figure 2. The six possible individual angles formed at maximum system torsion. Figures 3, 4 and 5 show how those angles typically change during the throw. As far as the time periods, the main focus in most cases is during the period between the landing of the right foot (RTD) and the release of the discus (REL). During this phase, the torsion angles of the shoulders in relation to the hips, of the hips in relation to the feet and of the throwing arm in relation to the shoulders, all of those values reach a local maximum which expresses the maximum magnitude of winding up just before the final unwinding. In most throwers maximum torsion of the hips in relation to the feet is reached first, followed by that of the shoulders in relation to the hips. Similarly, maximum torsion of the shoulders relative to the hips is followed by maximum torsion of the right arm relative to the shoulders. A careful consideration of the fluctuation and order of the angles described above reveals a pattern where the lower parts of the thrower+discus system begin their actions before the upper parts, something that is typical in throwing activities. The most prevailing explanation for such an order of action (Alexander, 1991) is that during the throwing action greater demands are required from the musculature of the lower parts of the system rather than that of the upper parts. It seems that the muscles of the lower parts of the system are required to accelerate the lower parts in addition to supporting the acceleration of the upper parts. On the other hand the muscles of the upper parts of the system are required to accelerate the upper parts only. Another observation is that the musculature of the lower parts is stronger than that of the upper parts but the greater demands placed upon them makes them act slower as they complete their task. Because of that, the leg muscles need to start their actions before the muscles of the upper body so they can complete their task at the same time as the muscles of the upper body which have a lighter task to do compared to their own strength. If the upper body is activated too early, the discus will be released before the muscles of the lower body and torso have had the chance to fully participate in the throw, resulting in a reduced throwing distance. The torsion angle that is of most interest is the angle between the line connecting the feet and the orientation of the 263 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

16 right arm. This angle expresses the total torsion of the system and is the sum of the angles between the hips and the feet, the angle between the shoulders and the hips, and the angle between the right arm and the shoulders. Figure 3 shows that this total torsion angle reaches a maximum value during the single support on the right foot. It is worth pointing out here that, during actual throwing, this angle is not as large as the sum of the maximum values of the three angles just described, and this is because those three angles reach their maximum values at different times, as implied earlier. Figure 3. Typical torsion angle changes between the hips and the feet, the shoulders and the feet, and the right arm and the feet during the course of a discus throw. Note that negative values indicate that the upper parts of the system are behind the lower parts. RTO= right take off, RTD= right touch down. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997). during the course of a discus throw. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997). Figure 5. Typical torsion angle changes between the right arm and the shoulders during the course of a discus throw. (Adapted from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997). Figure 6 shows an average magnitude of the six torsion angles at the moment the right arm reaches its maximum torsion relative to the line connecting the feet. The larger the value of the torsion angle between the right arm and the feet (their respective lines) the better. If the value of that angle is smaller than the average, one may have to observe the values of the angles between the hips and the feet, the shoulders and the hips and the right arm and the shoulders to ascertain as to which one of them may be responsible for such a discrepancy since those three angles add up to the total torsion angle of the system. Figure 4. Typical torsion angle changes between the shoulders and the hips, and the right arm and the hips, Figure 6. Average torsion angles at the moment of maximum torsion of the system and, at release. (Data from: Dapena & Anderst, 1997). Figure 6 also shows an average magnitude of the six torsion angles at the moment of release. Those angles show how well the thrower may have unwound during 264 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

17 the transfer of the angular momentum from the body to the discus, following the double support in the middle of the circle. Ideally, the thrower would like to obtain a large angle between the right arm and the feet at release. One should keep in mind though that if the thrower is airborne during release, that torsion angle may not be very useful. Instead, the angle between the right arm and the hip axis may be the preferred way to evaluate as to how well the thrower unwound. Again, large values of this angle are desired at release. The separation between the hip and the shoulder axes has been a well-known technical point in discus throwing where the thrower aims to increase the angle between the hip axis and the shoulder axis during the final double support. Figure 3 shows that this angle typically reaches its maximum value between right and left foot touch down in the front of the circle. In addition to separating those two axes during the final double support position, many practitioners also advocate an active separation of those two axes in the back of the circle during the transition from double to single support over the left foot. To achieve this, the shoulders, in at least some throwers, literally stay back and "negate" the leading of the lower part of the body and this action may inhibit the maximum development of momentum in the back of the circle which is of paramount importance in discus throwing (also see Maheras, 2008). An examination of figure 4, shows that after reaching a local maximum during the winds, the hip/shoulders angle becomes progressively smaller all the way to and even past the right foot take off. Eventually, at the end of this unwinding phase, the shoulders completely catch up with the hips, just before left foot take off. Indeed, there is no need for an active separation between the hip and the shoulder axes in the earlier part of the turn in the back of the circle. In most cases, all the thrower needs to do in the back of the circle is to make sure that the shoulders neutrally follow the lead of the right leg. The shoulders should not "negate" the turn in the back of the circle. In the best case scenario, for those throwers who are capable of doing it correctly, the left arm could be "thrown" to the left during the turn in the back of the circle so it can aid in the development of momentum (also see Maheras, 2011). Regarding the hips and shoulders separation, all that matters is that those two axes are well separated in the final double support phase only. Attempting to separate the axes in the back of the circle does not facilitate that. References Alexander, R. McN. (1991). Optimum Timing of Muscle Activation for Simple Models of Throwing. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 150, Dapena, J., & Anderst, W. (1997). Discus Throw (Men). Scientific Services Project, U.S.A Track & Field. Biomechanics Laboratory, Dept. of Kinesiology, Indiana University. Maheras, A. (2011). The Function of the Extremities in Discus Throwing. Techniques for Track and Field & Cross Country, 4 (4), Maheras, A. (2008). Momentum Development in Discus Throwing. NTCA Throwers Handbook, J.A. Peterson & Lasorsa R. editors, p.p TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

18 Goal-Setting Revision, Effectiveness, and Frequency in the Multi-Event in Track and Field Brian Beeman 1, Linda A. Keeler 2, Kevin Patton 1, and Traci Ciapponi 1 1 Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Chico 2 Department of Physical Education, Health, and Recreation, Western Washington University Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived effectiveness and frequency of goal-setting and goal-setting revision techniques used by multi-event athletes in intercollegiate track and field. The goal-setting frequency and goal-setting effectiveness subscales of the Olympic Goal Practices Questionnaire (OGPQ; Burton, Pickering, Weinberg, Yukelson, & Weigand, 2010) were used to assess goal-setting practices of 44 intercollegiate decathletes and heptathletes. Additional questions on goal revision practices were developed from a pilot study focus group interview. Multi-athletes reported using goal-setting sometimes/frequently, perceived goal-setting to be somewhat effective, and revised goals sometimes/frequently. Goal revision was found to occur most often between events, after the first of two days of competition, and after the high jump due to accomplishing an initial goal, previous performance, other competitors, injury, and weather. No statistical difference was found in goal-setting practices between males and females. Implications and future directions in goal-setting practices related to the multi-event are discussed. Introduction Goal-setting is a psychological skill that can enhance performance by giving individuals a task to focus on, a reason to persist with that task for a longer period, and motivation to find new strategies to accomplish an objective (Weinberg, 1994). Researchers have noted the effects of goalsetting on task performance (Locke & Latham, 1985) as well as the consistent and powerful performance enhancement effects of goalsetting for a variety of athletes (Burton, Weinberg, Yukelson, & Weigand, 1998). While goal-setting has been studied in depth in a variety of sports (e.g., Burton, 1989; O Brien, Mellalieu, & Hanton, 2009; Stroeber, Uphill, & Hotham, 2009), there is no known research on goal-setting specific to the unique sport of the multi-event in track and field. Multi-events in intercollegiate track and field are two-day competitions with 30 minute transitions between either 10 events for males (decathlon) or 7 events for females (heptathlon) and can vary from three hours to eight hours each day; thus, it is an event within track and field that warrants a more focused lens. Locke and Latham (1985) identified goal-setting as a technique that can help motivate, increase confidence and skill of athletes in competitive sports. Goals also tend to motivate individuals to use one s existing ability, bringing out stored knowledge relevant to the specific task, and/or can motivate people to search for new knowledge. Locke and Latham further identified eight main principles of goal-setting practice to promote effective performance enhancement: 1) specific goals are more effective and reliable than vague goals; 2) 266 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

19 more difficult or challenging goals are more effective than moderate or easy goals; 3) short-term goals are effective in helping attain long-term goals; 4) goal-setting helps focus and direct the activity of an individual, regulate expenditure of effort, enhance persistence, and develop new strategies for improving performance; 5) goal-setting only works if there is timely feedback on progress; 6) goals must be accepted to be effective; 7) goal attainment is usually accompanied by a strategy or a plan of action; and 8) competition is a natural type of goal-setting onto itself. Despite evidence suggesting the utility of goal-setting, the frequency of use and perception of goal-setting effectiveness by athletes varies. Burton and colleagues (1998) found that 96.4% of collegiate athletes reported using some type of goal-setting, but most athletes only did so on occasion and found goals to be only moderately effectively, which was consistent with previous findings (Burton, Weinberg, &Yukelson, 1991). Athletes also tend to prefer moderate to very difficult goals (Kyllo & Landers, 1995; Locke & Latham, 1990; Weinberg, 1994), which is not necessarily consistent with best practices. Goal-setting interventions have led to positive outcomes. In one of the few goalsetting examinations within track and field, McCarthy, Jones, Harwood and Davenport (2010) implemented a goal-setting intervention for three female junior track and field multi-event athletes. Qualitative results indicated goal-setting supported positive affect, helped athletes focus attention on task, mobilize effort, persist longer, and develop new learning strategies. Positive experiences were also associated with feelings of mastery, and increasing intrinsic motivation. Findings support the connection between goal-setting and factors related to performance enhancement in multi-event sport; however, it may also be a complicated process. It has been theorized that goal-setting is a seemingly simple technique that is much more complicated than it looks (Burton, Naylor, & Holiday, 2001). There are times when goals may be set too high, difficult, or vague (Kyllo & Landers, 1995), resulting in the practice of changing or revising goals. Since goals are sometimes not initially achieved, goal adjustment or revision could be an important technique to study. There has been limited research on goal revision, and very limited on goal revision in track and field. Williams, Donovan and Dodge (2000) examined goal-revision tactics of 25 track and field athletes. The researchers found that an initial preseason goal for an event was rarely achieved throughout the season and current competition goals were only achieved 2.9% of attempts. Following the negative performance feedback, athletes tended to revise their goals for the following competition 49.6% of the time by either revising them to an easier goal (30.8% of the time), or even to a more difficult goal (18.8% of the time). Further, there were some gender differences found on initial goal difficulty with men setting more difficult goal compared to previous best performances than women. It is not clear whether these revision tactics were helpful or harmful to subsequent competitions or if there were any influences on subsequent performances that same day (i.e., if an athlete competed in multiple events or in the multi-event). Findings support the need for further assessment of goal-revision strategies in multi-event athletes as not reaching a goal on one event within the same competition could influence goal revision on a completely different subsequent event. To date, there is also no known research on goal-setting revision within any other multi-events. To educate and intervene with goal-setting best practice in the multievent in track and field, there must first be an understanding of current multi-athletes goalsetting processes. The purpose of this study 267 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

20 was to examine the perceived effectiveness and frequency of goal-setting and goal-setting revision techniques used by multi-event athletes in track and field. This research differs from previous in that it is the first known quantitative measurement of goalsetting and goal-setting revision techniques of multi-event athletes in track and field. Research questions included: a) what were the goal-setting practices of multi-athletes?; b) what were multi-athletes perceptions of goal-setting effectiveness?; c) what were the goal-setting revision practices of multiathletes mid-competition?; d) how was the frequency of revising goals related to perceived goal effectiveness and frequency?; and e) what gender differences exist among variables, if any? Method Participants Human subjects review board approval and informed consent was obtained before data collection. There were 61 multievent athletes who opened a hyperlink to the current survey and 44 (72%) who completed it (note: due to the online survey method, it is unknown how many potential participants actually received the survey link). Twentyfour (54.5%) of the participants were male and 20 (45.5 %) participants were female. Of the 44 participants, 1 (2.3%) was a freshman, 12 (27.3%) were sophomores, 14 (31.8%) were juniors, 16 (36.4%) were seniors, and 1 (2.3%) was a graduate student within a university in the United States (U.S.). The competitive athletic divisions represented were: 6 (13.6%) junior college, 1 (2.3%) National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), 17 (38.6%) National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, 14 (31.8%) NCAA Division II, and 6 (13.6%) NCAA Division III. The participants identified as: 5 (11.4%) Black/African American, 1 (2.3%) Hispanic, 36 (81.8%) White/Caucasian, 1 (2.3%) Scandinavian, and 1 (2.3%) declined to respond. Athletes ranged in age from 18 to 25, with a mean age of years (SD = 1.47). There was a mean of 2.80 years (SD = 2.08) of experience with goal-setting. Skill level varied in the sample with 3 former national champions, 7 All- Americans, 13 conference champions, and 22 all-conference athletes (note: these accolades were not necessarily achieved only in the multi-events). Procedures A letter describing the purpose of the study and an electronic link to the questionnaire was sent out electronically to coaches. Cluster sampling was used by selecting universities throughout the United States to target several teams. Each conference in each collegiate division that had current multi-event athletes had at least one school randomly chosen to be sent the questionnaire. Selected schools represented the California Collegiate Athletic Association (Division II), California Junior Colleges, Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference schools (Division II), and Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletic Association schools (Division II). The website, was used to find the schools in these conferences. A search engine was used to find the school s athletic website and from there the coach s s were identified. Lists of the schools from each conference in each division that had multi-event programs were made. A random numbering selection was used with each list to find the school in each conference that would be contacted. In addition to these schools, fellow multi-event colleagues of the primary author were contacted via to send the questionnaire to their athletes and any other coaches known to be involved with a multi-event program. As a result, 122 coaches were contacted via and asked to forward the link to their athletes. Through snowball sampling, coaches were also asked to send the link to other coaches in their conference or any other coaches in 268 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

21 intercollegiate track and field they might know. Coaches were offered an incentive of receiving results of the study that may help them with goal-setting strategies. The questionnaire was also sent through electronic mail and social network groups via Facebook (Decathlon, and Track and Field Weekly) to reach additional multi-event athletes. Questionnaires were collected from May through July during one year. Pilot Study There is no known validated questionnaire on goal-setting revision techniques; therefore, a focus group was used to help develop goal-revision questions to include in the questionnaire for the main portion of this study. Multi-event athletes who participated in the focus group were from a NCAA Division II, mid-size, West Coast university in the U.S. Two heptathletes (one a sophomore, one a junior) and two decathletes (seniors) who volunteered as a convenience sample for the focus group. These athletes were chosen based on multiple years of experience in the multievent. The following open-ended goal revision questions were asked during the focus group: 1) During competition, do you ever change/adjust/revise a specific event goal (one that was set before competition) for at least one event during the decathlon/heptathlon? 2) If yes, when do you usually change these goals? 3) Why have you ever have changed/adjusted/revised a specific goal during competition? 4) In what ways do you typically change/revise goals? A list of examples were provided during the focus group that included items such as the practice of changing goals from a product (a point total or place) to a process (cues within events) or from a point total to getting a certain place (1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, etc.). The focus group resulted in a 41 minute discussion that was audio recorded. The focus group interview was transcribed and analyzed by two trained researchers for themes. As a result, lists of reasons why and when goal revision techniques tended to be used were created and added to the final objective survey that was utilized for the primary purpose of this investigation (the lists that were identified and used can be found in Table 1, 2, and 3). Instrumentation Two subscales of the Olympic Goal Practices Questionnaire (OGPQ; Burton, Pickering, Weinberg, Yukelson, & Weigand, 2010) were used in this study. The two subscales were modified from similar subscales in the Collegiate Goal Setting in Sport Questionnaire (CGSSQ; Burton, Weinberg, & Yukelson, 1991; Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, & Weigand, 1993). The full OGPQ has two sections with four subscales: goal commitment, barriers to goal-setting, frequency of goal-setting and perceived effectiveness of goal-setting. The two OGPQ subscales used in the present study were goal-setting effectiveness (21 items) and goalsetting frequency (20 items). The subscale sections are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always) for frequency and 1 (very ineffective) to 7 (very effective) for effectiveness. Mean scores for the two subscales were calculated for analyses. Since the OGPQ has been used for multiple types of sports (Burton et al., 2010), it has been modified for the current study to be suitable for multi-event athletes in track and field. The changes that were made to the questionnaire included the following: 1) in the directions, Olympic athletes was changed to collegiate multi-event athletes ; and 2) limited to high school experiences was changed to limited to collegiate experiences. Although the OGPQ was still undergoing further testing at the time of this investigation, there were additional pending data to support its factor structure and validity, and thereby support for its use (D. Burton, personal communication, September 16, 2011). Further, in the current study, 269 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

22 Cronbach s alpha for the frequency of goalsetting scale was.89 and.85 for the goal effectiveness scale, which suggested very good internal consistency reliability (Pallant, 2010). In addition to the OGPQ subscales, goal-setting revision questions developed during the pilot study were included in the survey. Questions on revision were as follows: 1) during competition, do you ever change/adjust/revise a specific event goal (one that was set before competition) for at least one event during the decathlon/ heptathlon? (this was measured by a yes or no answer); 2) If yes, when do you usually change these goals? (see Table 1 for list); 3) If yes, check the reasons why you ever have changed/adjusted/revised a specific goal during competition? (see Table 2 for list); 4) In what ways do you typically change/revise goals? (see Table 3 for list). Table 1. Frequency for When Males, Females, and Overall Sample Revised Goals Females (n = 20) Males (n = 24) Overall Sample (n = 44) n % n % n % After the 100 Meters After the 100 Hurdles After the Long Jump After the Shot Put After the Discus After the Pole Vault After the High Jump After the 200 Meters After the 400 Meters After the 110 Hurdles After the Javelin During an Event After the Completion of Day Prior to an Event Between Events Note. Missing data indicate a non-applicable possibility for athletes due to slight differences in events in the heptathlon and decathlon. 270 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

23 Table 2. Frequency for Why Males, Females, and Overall Sample Revised Goals Females (n = 20) Males (n = 24) Overall Sample (n = 44) n % n % n % Injury Other Competitors Weather Previous Performance No Mark in an Event Facilities Environment Teammates Accomplished an Initial Goal Goal was Set Too High Note. Missing data indicates no females chose facilities and environment as reasons to revise goals Demographic items were also included in the survey, which assessed gender, age, sport experience, and primary sport. Current academic year, current competitive athletic division, ethnicity, seasons competed in decathlon or heptathlon and years of experience were added to the demographic section; and number of times you ve been selected to teams for each of these elite competitions and the number of medals you ve won in each competition was changed to write yes or no if you have accomplished one of the following feats. If yes, please put how many times you have been one of the following. The final questionnaire including the goal effectiveness and frequency subscales, goal revision items and demographic questions was administered electronically via an electronic assessment system: Campus Labs (formerly known as StudentVoice). 271 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

24 Table 3. Frequency for How Males, Females, and Overall Sample Revised Goals Females (n = 20) Males (n = 24) Overall Sample (n = 44) n % n % n % Product (Point Total) to Process (Cues) Process (Cues) to Product (Point Total) To a Higher/Tougher/More Difficult Goal To an Easier/Lower/Less Difficult Goal From a Point Total to Getting a Certain Place (1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, etc.) Results Frequency of Goal-Setting The overall mean frequency of goalsetting for all respondents was 4.91 (SD =.81). An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare males (n = 24) and females (n = 20) with the frequency in which they set goals. There was no statistically significant difference between males (M = 4.89, SD =.79) and females (M = 4.93, SD =.86) on reported frequency of goal-setting, t(42) = -.18, p =.86, two-tailed. The mean difference between males and females was -.04, 95% CI: -.55 to.46 with a moderate effect (eta squared =.06; Cohen, 1988; Pallant, 2010). Effectiveness of Goal-Setting Perceived effectiveness of goal-setting for all respondents ranged from 2.35 to 7.00, with a mean of 5.35 (SD =.91). An independent t-test was conducted to compare males and females across perceived effectiveness of goals. There was no statistically significant difference between males (M = 5.37, SD = 0.79) and females (M = 5.33, SD = 1.05), t(42) = -.16, p =.88, twotailed. The mean difference was.04, 95% CI: -.52 to.61 with a small effect size (eta squared = ; Cohen, 1988; Pallant, 2010). Goal-Setting Revision The mean frequency of goal revision was 3.59 (SD = 1.50). There was no significant difference between males (M = 3.25, SD = 1.62) and females (M = 4.00, SD = 1.26) in the frequency of goal revisions, t(42) = -1.69, p =.099, two-tailed. The mean difference was -.75, 95% CI: to.15 with a moderate effect (eta squared =.06; Cohen, 1988; 272 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

25 Pallant, 2010).The frequency of when and reasons for goal revision practices can be found in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. A Pearson product moment correlation between frequency of goal-setting and frequency of goal revision was not significant r(44) = -0.07, p =.645. Similarly, there was no significant correlation found between perceptions of goal-setting effectiveness and the frequency of goal-setting revision r(44)= 0.004, p =.98. Discussion This study was the first known goalsetting research specific to intercollegiate multi-event athletes (i.e., multi-athletes). Results indicated that intercollegiate multiathletes sometimes or frequently used goalsetting, which was similar to Burton et al. s study (2010). There was no statistically significant difference between males and females in reported goal-setting frequency, which was not consistent with Burton s (1993) findings in a study that included a variety of athletes. Decathletes and heptathletes possibly have similar goalsetting practices due to the common practice of sharing coaching staff in the multi-event. There appears to be a culture of goal-setting in intercollegiate multi-event; however, there is still room to increase goal-setting practices as there were several athletes who reported using goal-setting only sometimes. Overall, multi-athletes perceived goalsetting to be somewhat effective with no differences between genders. Given that goal-setting can help improve performance and increase motivation in sport (Kyllo & Landers, 1995), the current findings support that multi athletes may be aware of or perceive the value of some of these benefits. To enhance the perceptions of goal-setting effectiveness, coaches may introduce or enhance their education, reinforcing both the performance enhancement and motivational effects of goal-setting on performance (for a goal-setting review for coaches see Weinberg, 2010). Further, Burton et al. (1998) found that athletes underutilise goal-setting and may need education about the value and effectiveness this strategy can provide. Therefore, it is important for coaches to dedicate practice time to cultivate goalsetting skills and not presume multi-athletes are proficient at goal-setting. A strategic plan linking short-term and long-term goals that coincide with the season periodization training plan may be an effective implementation tactic (see Vidic & Burton, 2010 for a strategic goal-setting implementation plan). How much time multi coaches spend on teaching psychological skills compared to technical skills for multiathletes can be a focus for future research. Interestingly, multi-athletes in the current study reported revising goals sometimes or frequently during competition. The two most frequent reported times when male and female multi-athletes revised goals were after the completion of day one and between events. The top third choice was different between males and females in that males third choice was prior to an event and the females third choice was after the high jump. The reason why revision may take place after the completion of day one, between events, or prior to an event is likely due to down time when athletes have had a chance to evaluate how well they performed and whether adjustment of goals are needed as a result. Alternatively, revision may occur because of a previous low scoring event, specifically the high jump. High jump is an event where a no height, which results in zero points, can happen more often than in the other field events. A no height may be the cause of why female athletes revise goals more often after the high jump. Using performance feedback to evaluate and revise a goal is a recommended practice if done properly (Locke & Latham, 1985). Perhaps more important is the way athletes changed their goals. 273 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

26 The manner in which multi athletes reported revising their goals may be of concern. If goals are adjusted/changed to either an easier goal or more difficult goal, motivation could be lost because the new goal was either too easy or too hard (Locke & Latham, 2006). Kyllo and Landers (1995) stated that a goal that is set too high will be viewed as unrealistic or unattainable and affect motivation negatively. Goals are not to be so difficult they are unreachable and not so easy that they are attained too quickly, but at a difficulty level that makes an individual work at a task rather than give up. Unrealistic goals should be avoided because if goals are too difficult they can result in failure, motivation will drop off, and performance in the given task will decrease (Weinberg, 1994). In the present study, athletes reported changing from a point total to an outcome/certain place (i.e., 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd, etc.), a product (point total) to process (cues) goals, and to a higher/tougher/more difficult goal more frequently than other revision options. First, revising a goal from a point total to a certain place may be a concern because some athletes may change their concentration from task-related cues (task goal) to focus more on their competition (outcome goal), negatively affecting concentration and increasing competition anxiety (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Second, when athletes adjust an initial goal to a more difficult goal, there is a risk that the new goal would be set too high, which could cause decreased motivation if the goal is not attained. Decreased motivation from failure to attain a goal could then affect subsequent multi events. Alternatively, motivation may have already been enhanced because an initial goal was achieved (e.g., a specific height on the high jump) and the opportunity to increase the difficulty of a specific event goal was needed as a consequence. Finally, athletes who change from a product to a process goal may be trying to focus more on a single event rather than the total outcome point total, which could be beneficial in terms of concentration and motivation. Further study of how goal revision takes place within a multi-event is needed to understand the benefits or detriments of the most often reported revision practices, perhaps using a qualitative design that incorporates interviews after multiple event competitions. The current study is relevant to the intercollegiate track and field population because it allows coaches and athletes to understand information about goal-setting and the revision of goals within the multicommunity. It is important for coaches and athletes to know that goal revision occurs so that coaches and athletes can be educated on productive goal revision practices. Coaches should address revision and possible benefits and decrements revision may cause to motivation or performance. Coaches and athletes will want to work together to identify events and times when goal adjustment techniques will be beneficial. Future researchers could examine if goal-setting and goal-setting revision is a technique that is coached or just something the athlete does naturally. Further, a need to study the effectiveness of goal-setting revision timing is needed because it may be beneficial to adjust goals during certain times, but goal-revision as a quick reaction to negative or positive results may not be best practice. There were no significant correlations found between goal-setting frequency and goal-revision frequency or perceptions of goal-setting effectiveness and the frequency of goal-setting revision. The absence of significant correlations between these factors is important as it indicates that there are a variety of multi-athletes who are revising goals, not just the athletes who are setting goals or perceive goals to be effective. Future studies on the perceived effectiveness of goal-revision would help coaches and athletes involved in the multi-event to better understand the benefits or detriments of 274 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

27 goal-revision. Overall, the current study can be helpful to track and field coaches to familiarise themselves with goal-setting practices of multi athletes; however, there are a few limitations to this research. First, although the information gathered from the focus group was crucial for the construction of goal revision items, answers may have been influenced by the dual role of the interviewer and first author who was a track and field coach at the same university. Although athletes volunteered for the study and were assured that their answers would no way influence their status on the team, there may have been an unseen influence in their answers because of the presence of one of their coaches. In addition, since the first author was also an ex-intercollegiate multievent athlete, solicitations for participation were sent to a variety of sources but included former teammates, competitors, and current colleagues to attain a larger sample size. Although a partial convenience sample was used, it was deemed necessary as there is small population of multi-eventers in the U.S. and a wide scope of recruitment was need to avoid a small sample size. The nature of this study was meant to be an exploratory investigation of goal-setting and goal revision in the multi-event in track and field given the lack of research specific to these unique set of athletes. Goal-setting is used by intercollegiate multi-athletes, but not at a high frequency and only perceived to be somewhat effective. A reason why goalsetting might not have been perceived to be effective by multi-athletes is that athletes are not adequately educated on the benefits of setting and revising goals. Coaches should become more familiar and knowledgeable with how goal-setting could improve their athlete s performance and motivation. Goal revision is a technique that could possibly benefit or harm multi-athletes performance so coaches should be aware of this practice and educated on effective goal-revision techniques. Future investigators in this area could examine perceived and actual effectiveness of goal revision on performance in multi-events. References Burton, D. (1989). The impact of goal specificity and task complexity on basketball skill development. The Sport Psychologist, 3, Burton, D. (1993). Goal setting in sport. Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York: Macmillan, Burton, D., Naylor, S., & Holliday, B. (2001). Goal setting in sport: Investigating the goal effectiveness paradox. Handbook of Sport Psychology (2 nd ed., pp ). New York: Wiley. Burton, D., Pickering, M., Weinberg, R., Yukelson, D., & Weigand, D. (2010). The competitive goal effectiveness paradox revisited: Examining the goal practices of prospective Olympic athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, Burton, D., Weinberg, R., Yukelson, D., & Weigand, D. (1998). The goal effectiveness paradox in sport: Examining the goal practices of collegiate athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12, Burton, D., Weinberg, R. S., & Yukelson, D. (1991). Contemporary goal setting practices of collegiate athletes: Gender, sport type, and ability correlates. Unpublished manuscript. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 275 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

28 Hall, H. K., & Byrne, A. T. J. (1988). Goal setting in sport: Clarifying recent anomalies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, Kyllo, L. B., & Landers, D. M. (1995). Goal setting in sport and exercise: A research synthesis to resolve the controversy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, Locke, E.A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports - and their solution. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: Psychological Bulletin, 90, McCarthy, P., Jones, M., Harwood, C., & Davenport, L. (2010).Using goal setting to enhance positive affect among junior multievent athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, O Brien, M., Mellalieu, S., & Hanton, S. (2009). Goal-setting effects in elite and nonelite boxers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual 4 th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw- Hill Companies. Stroeber, J., Uphill, M., & Hotham, S. (2009). Predicting race performance in triathlon: The role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal goal setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, Vidic, Z., & Burton, D. (2010). The roadmap: Examining the impact of a systematic goal-setting program for collegiate women s tennis players. The Sport Psychologist, 24, Weinberg, R. (1994). Goal setting and performance in sport and exercise settings: A synthesis and critique. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, Weinberg, R. (2010). Making goals effective: A primer for coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 1(2), Weinberg, R., Burton, D., Yukelson, D., & Weigand, D. (1993). Goal setting in competitive sport: An exploratory investigation of practices of collegiate athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 7, Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (5 th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Williams, K., Donovan, J., & Dodge, T. (2000). Self-regulation of performance: Goal establishment and goal revision processes in athletes. Human Performance, 13, TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL

29 277 TRACK & CROSS COUNTRY JOURNAL