the effects of goal-setting and imagery training programs on … · 2018-06-09 · the spori...

The Spori Psychologist, 1996,10,382-397 O 1996 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

The Effects of Goal-Setting and Imagery Training Programs on the Free-Throw Performance

of Female Collegiate Basketball Players

Bart S. Lerner The Citadel

Andrew C. Ostrow, Michael T. Yura, and Edward F. Etzel West Virginia University

The purposes of this study were to investigate the effects of goal-setting and imagery programs, as well as a combined goal-setting and imagery training program, on the free-throw performance among female collegiate basketball players over the course of an entire season. A multiple-baseline, single-subject A-B-A design was employed in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three interventions: (a) goal-setting (n = 4), (b) imagery (n = 4), or (c) goal-setting and imagery (n = 4). Free-throw data were collected during practice sessions. Data were examined by way of changes in mean, level, trend, latency, and variability between baseline and intervention, and then between intervention and a second baseline phase. Three participants in the goal-setting program, and one participant in the goal-setting and imagery program, increased their mean free-throw performance from baseline to intervention. However, three participants in the imagery program decreased their mean free-throw performance from baseline to intervention. Goal discrepancy scores also were investigated. A positive correlation was found between participants' free-throw performance and personal goals.

Goal-setting and imagery are two specific interventions that have been researched thoroughly within sport psychology literature, but often the research design has focused on traditional between-group experimentation. Single-subject designs repre- sent important methodological tools that extend beyond any particular view about behavior and the factors by which it is influenced. The designs can be evaluated in their own right as a methodology to contribute to applied and experimental work.

Bart S. Lerner is with the Counseling Center at The Citadel, Charleston, SC 29409. Andrew C. Ostrow and Edward E Etzel both are with the School of Physical Education, and Michael T, Yura is with the Department of Counseling Psychology, all at West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506.

Goal-Setting and Imagery * 383

Greenspan and Feltz (1989) and Vealey (1994) reviewed numerous studies that examined the effectiveness of various psychological interventions in competitive sport settings including golf, basketball, baseball, and volleyball. They concluded that psychological interventions may improve the performance of collegiate athletes in competitive situations. Two interventions shown to be effective, particularly in applied settings, were goal-setting and imagery. The present study examined the effectiveness of goal-setting and imagery training programs, combined together, and as separate entities.

Goal-Setting Locke and Latham (1990) developed a theory of goal-setting that has served as a benchmark for numerous studies in industrial and organizational psychology, and more recently, in the sport and exercise realms. The basic assumption of goal- setting theory is that task performance is directly regulated by the conscious goals that individuals strive toward on a task (Weinberg, 1994). In particular, Locke and Latham's (1990) goal-setting theory stated that: (a) hard goals lead to a higher level of performance than do easy goals, and (b) specific goals lead to better performance than do general goals (e.g., "do your best" instructions), or no goals. A popular method of assessing goal-setting behavior is through the evaluation of an individual's level of aspiration prior to, during, andlor following performance on particular tasks. This can be accomplished as part of a goal-setting program specific for each athlete.

Miller and McAuley (1987) examined the effects of a goal-setting training program on basketball free-throw performance. Participants were either assigned to a goal-training or no goal-training group. Results indicated there were no significant differences between the two groups on free-throw accuracy. However, it was revealed that participants in the goal-training group had higher perceptions of success and efficacy expectations than did the no goal-training group at the end of the program. The authors suggest there is a need to continue research within this realm of the sporting environment. However, this line of research has been generally characterized by a nomothetic approachllarge group design. Few studies ap- pear to adopt an idiographiclsingle-subject design perspective.

Swain and Jones (1995) examined the effects of a goal-setting intervention program on selected basketball skills by using a single-subject design. Results indicated that 3 of the 4 subjects displayed marked improvements in their selected areas of behavior performance.

To establish an effective goal-setting program for athletes, guidelines should be set based on the research literature. Gould (1993) has outlined a number of useful guidelines that have been empirically tested by researchers who have had extensive experience in employing goal-setting techniques with athletes (Burton, 1989; Gould, 1983; Harris & Harris, 1984; Orlick, 1990).

As an example, Burton (1989) employed a goal-setting training (GST) program for collegiate swimmers. The GST program taught swimmers to set appro- priate performance goals. Also, performance increased with the institution of this training program. However, a concern of this study was that male swimmers were less committed to the GST program than female swimmers. Based on past research, Burton (1989) suggested that female swimmers may have been more motivated to please coaches than were their male teammates (Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, &

384 Lerner, Ostrow, Yura, and Etzel

Enna, 1978). Further, females may simply perceive it to be more socially accept- able to base their perceived ability on performance standards. Researchers have found some females are more performance- or task-oriented, and male athletes are more outcome-oriented (Duda, 1985; Ewing, 1981).

Researchers generally agree that goal-setting programs must be structured and incorporated into practice sessions. These training skills must be used on a routine basis in order to improve athletic performance (Burton, 1989; Hughes, 1990).

Imagery Researchers who have studied the effects of imagery on the learning of motor skills have hypothesized that imagery facilitates the acquisition of a skill (Grouios, 1992; Ryan & Simons, 1981; Ryan & Simons, 1982; White, Ashton, & Lewis, 1979).

One sport that has received much attention in the past has been basketball. In this sport, free-throw shooting has been an objective measure by which to gauge the effects of imagery on improving performance on a "closed" motor skill. Closed skills are characterized by being self-paced, requiring concentration, unchang- ing environment, and having a repetitious behavior for a given movement that replicates a perfected standard. They are often easier to consistently imagine clearly than open skills (Wi-isberg & Anshel, 1989). Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the use of imagery would readily enhance performance for closed skills.

Meyers and Schleser (1980) used a single-subject design to investigate the effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention program, which included imagery, on performance enhancement of field goal and free-throw shooting in basketball. They found significant increases in the college athlete's points scored per game and shooting percentage relative to baseline. There was not a significant increase in the athlete's free-throw shooting percentage. However, no measures were obtained to ensure the athlete had adopted a cognitive-behavioral strategy.

Kearns and Crossman (1992), and Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin, and Kendall (1 990) employed single-subject designs to examine the effects of imagery-rehearsal strategies on basketball game performances in applied settings. Results indicated that improvements were reported for athletes on free-throw performances and specified defensive basketball skills.

Wollman (1986) stated single-subject designs permit the detection of successful effects for certain individuals who might not have their success displayed and highlighted by a nonsignificant group design. In single-subject research, a person's performance behavior is observed for a period of time prior to the onset of one or more experimental interventions. These designs eliminate the need for a control group, and allow each participant to be examined independently of a group in order to enhance improvements in individual performance (Bryan, 1987). Smith (1988) has suggested that single-subject designs can provide important and necessary insights into processes underlying sporting behaviors by serving as a source of observations concerning intervention techniques.

Research has revealed that goal-setting and imagery training programs alone enhance free-throw shooting performance for athletes. However, the combination of a goal-setting and imagery training program on free-throw performance has yet to be examined within an applied setting for basketball athletes on a collegiate level. Therefore, the institution of both a goal-setting and imagery training program

Goal-Setting and Imagery 385

together, in order to enhance free-throw performance for collegiate basketball players, was examined.

Athletes can use imagery to replay previous performances and set goals for improvement based on past performance. Imagery also is useful for "goal programming," which involves using imagery to "program" goals by repeatedly imag- ining achieving goals in practice and competition (Vealey &Walter, 1993). This may possibly lead to enhanced free-throw shooting accuracy. Overall, these training programs (goal-setting and imagery) allow athletes to become more aware of their strengths and weaknesses and, thus, help them seek out the best strategies for improvement.

The purposes of the study were to investigate the effects of goal-setting and imagery programs, and a combined goal-setting and imagery training program, on the performance of a basketball skill (free-throw shooting) among female collegiate basketball players over the course of an entire season. Performance data were collected under noncompetitive conditions (i.e., practice sessions). Collection of competitive performance data (i.e., during actual games) was a subsidiary part of the study. It was hypothesized that: (a) the mean and level of free-throw performance would be higher in each of the intervention program phases than in baseline; (b) the trend concerning free-throw performance would increase in each of the three training programs (goal-setting, imagery, and the combination of goal-setting and imagery) compared to baseline performance; (c) the latency between the first baseline phase and intervention phase would be shorter compared to the latency between the intervention phase and the second baseline phase; (d) the variability in free-throw performance would be highest in the second baseline phase; (e) a positive relationship would exist between free-throw performance during the intervention phase and personal goals.

Changes in mean across phases refer to shifts in the average rate of performance. Consistent changes in means across phases can serve as a basis for decid- ing whether the data pattern meets the requirements of the design. Changes in level refer to the shift or discontinuity of performance from the end of one phase to the beginning of the next phase. A change in level is independent of the change in mean (Kazdin, 1982).

A trend refers to the tendency for performance to decrease or increase sys- tematically or consistently over time. The alteration of phases within the design may show that the direction of performance changes as the intervention program is applied. Latency refers to the period between the onset or termination of one condition (e.g., intervention) and changes in performance. The more closely in time the change occurs after the experimental conditions have been instituted, the clearer the intervention effect. Finally, variability refers to the fluctuation in the subject's performance over time. Excessive variability in the data during baseline or other phases can interfere with drawing conclusions about the treatment effects. As a general rule, the greater the variability in the data-that is, the more of a dispar- ity between free-throw performance within a particular phase-the more difficult it is to draw conclusions about the effects of the intervention (Kazdin, 1982).

Method Participants Participants consisted of an entire women's basketball team (N = 12) from a small, Division 111 college located in the mid-Atlantic region who volunteered for this


study. Demographic data were gathered from each participant, including number of years on the team (M = 2. l), number of years competing (M = 9.5), and age (M = 19.3). All participants were informed of the nature and scope of this study without identifying the specific research goals. Informed consent was obtained from all the basketball players prior to commencement of the program.

Research Design An A-B-A multiple-baseline research design across subjects was implemented. Following baseline, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 interventions: (a) goal-setting (n = 4), (b) imagery (n = 4), or (c) a combination of goal-setting and imagery (n = 4). After the experimental condition, the third and final phase was the implementation of a baseline condition for each participant. This study began on the first day of practice and ran through the end of the season. Free-throw shooting took place at the beginning of practice. There was a minimum of one day and a maximum of two days that separated each session during baseline.

Procedure Phase Al . The baseline phase consisted of each basketball player shoot-

ing 20 free-throws at each session. They were told simply to make as many free- throws as possible. Each session took place on the basketball court in the team's home gymnasium during practice in noncompetitive conditions. This study was a multiple-baseline design across participants; after noncompetitive free-throw performance reached a stable rate for one individual in each of the three groups, the intervention was applied to that individual while baseline conditions continued for the others. In other words, the entry of participants into the intervention phase was staggered across the competitive basketball season. Free-throw performance of the player exposed to the intervention was hypothesized to improve, while free- throw performances for the others in each group were expected to continue at their baseline levels. When baseline stabilized for the next participant, she was then introduced to the intervention. This procedure continued until all of the players for whom baseline data were collected received the intervention. Currently, no agreed- upon objective-decision rules exist for altering phases in single-case experimental designs (Kazdin, 1982). The investigator decided that stability in baseline was determined by observing at least 6 consecutive sessions in which individual performance did not deviate by more than two free-throw shots.

Phase B. Goal-Setting. One-third of the participants were exposed to the goal-setting intervention following baseline. This phase consisted of teaching each basketball player to: (a) set specific goals in measurable and behavioral terms; (b) set difficult, but realistic goals based on past performance; (c) set goals for practice and competition; (d) record goals once they have been identified; and (e) provide support from the investigator, coach, and/or team members for self-set goals (Burton, 1989; Gould, 1993). Each player was asked to set a performance goal prior to shooting at each session (e.g., "My goal for today is. . ."). Each participant then attempted 20 free-throws per session under noncompetitive conditions.

Goal evaluation was provided prior to each session, in which the investigator helped each participant examine the performance results of the previous session. If a goal was not achieved, it was either readjusted or remained the same. However, if the goal was achieved, it was increased to a higher value.

Imagery. One-third of the participants were given the imagery training


program following baseline. This phase consisted of having each basketball player auditorily listen to an imagery tape, especially designed by the experimenter, under the supervision of a licensed psychologist. The tape included a polysensory experience for each participant to include visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfac- tory, and kinesthetic senses that occur within the competitive situation (e.g., see- ing the other players on the court, hearing the crowd, touching the ball, and so forth). This experience was necessary in order to help simulate actual game situations, so that each participant would feel more comfortable shooting free-throws.

The tape was a recording of each athlete's free-throw shooting behaviors. This tape was carefully edited (i.e., in consultation with the athlete andlor coach) to identify the perfect, or near perfect movements for each participant. The perfect movements for free-throw shooting were validated by asking each participant the routine she maintains before, during, and after a free-throw shot. These movements were then duplicated repeatedly on the tape and played three times before each session. The athlete closed her eyes and imagined her own actions.

The imagery guidelines (Burton, 1989) that were presented to each athlete were: (a) imaging the execution of the skill and the outcome; (b) the more vivid and the more detailed one can make the image the better; (c) image the skill as it naturally occurs, in order to analyze the performance to make improvements; (d) not only see oneself doing the skill, but feel oneself go through the motions; (e) practice the imagery with either an internal or external focus; (f) image the skill being performed successfully; (g) use imagery to strengthen the "blueprint" of those aspects of free-throw shooting performed well, and; (h) emphasize the qual- ity of practice and not just the quantity. Each imagery session was held once per day, which lasted approximately 15 minutes, prior to free-throw performance.

Each participant then attempted 20 free-throws under noncompetitive conditions. Each athlete listened to the tape alone before each trial in a secluded space. This was monitored by the investigator via a manipulation check that specifically asked the athlete to respond to what she heard in the tape.

Goal-Setting and Imagery. The other one-third of the participants received both the goal-setting and imagery training program following baseline. This phase consisted of having each basketball player listen to an imagery tape described above. After this, each participant set a performance goal based on the guidelines described earlier, and then attempted 20 free-throws. Goal-setting and imagery were combined together as one program, incorporating the unique qualities that each training program had to offer.

Each session in the intervention phase took place on the basketball court in the team's home gymnasium during practice under noncompetitive conditions. There was a minimum of one day and a maximum of two days that separated each session during Phase B. Ten sessions during intervention were implemented for every participant in order to allow each athlete to complete the study in a timely fashion before the end of the season.

Phase A2. Following the intervention phase, a second baseline phase was instituted for an additional 10 sessions. This phase consisted of each basketball player shooting 20 free-throws each session under noncompetitive conditions. Again, they were told simply to make as many free-throws as possible within 20 attempts. They were told not to employ the goal-setting andlor imagery guidelines.

In order to ensure reliability of these intervention procedures, the experimenter had a checklist each day that detailed the specific order of procedures so he

388 Lerner, Ostrow, Yum, and Etzel

did not deviate from them throughout the study. Each day, the order of procedures was the same and described to each basketball player in the same manner. There- fore, the intervention procedures were standardized for each basketball player.

Instrumentation Log Book. After each session, each athlete reported her own thoughts and

feelings concerning free-throw performance. Specifically, each athlete was asked, "How did you feel before, during, and after, shooting free-throws?'and "What were you thinking about before, during, and after shooting free-throws?' These questions served as an additional manipulation check in order to make sure each participant was adhering to each phase of the specified training program. As an additional part of the manipulation check, each player was asked to record in her log book at the end of each session, throughout the study, responses to the following questions: (a) "Did you use the strategy today?'and (b) "Did you experience any problems in using the strategy today?"

Goal-discrepancy scores within the intervention phase also were recorded in each individual's log book. An absolute goal-discrepancy score was the absolute difference between a participant's personal goal and actual performance. An overall goal-discrepancy score was the true difference between a participant's personal goal and actual performance. For example, if an athlete sets a goal of 15, and only makes 10 shots, her absolute goal-discrepancy score would be 5, but her true goal- discrepancy score would be -5. However, if an athlete sets a goal of 15, and makes 18 shots, both her absolute and true goal-discrepancy score would be 3. These scores were examined to determine the efficiency of each athlete's goal-setting accuracy as it relates to actual performance.

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Free-Throw Performance for Each Participant

Goal-setting Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4

Goal-setting and imagery Participant 1 15.17(.41) 16.40(1.90) 16.60(1.26) Participant 2 16.40(.84) 16.40(1.07) 15.10(.88) Participant 3 14.36(.93) 13.20(1.75) 12.70(1.89) Participant 4 12.94(1.43) 13.00(.82) 15.70(1.42)

Imagery Participant 1 15.33(.52) 14.90(1.45) 15.20(.92) Participant 2 12.90(.88) 12.50(1.51) 12.80(1.32) Participant 3 15.43(.94) 14.70(1.16) 15.50(2.22) Participant 4 15.22(1.59) 15.30(1.57) 15.40(1.07)

Note. Al = Baseline phase; B = Intervention phase; A2 = Second baseline phase.

Goal- Setting and Imagery 389

Results Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of free-throw performance and satisfaction scores during practice for each participant within each phase of the study.

Goal-Setting Intentention Performance. Figure 1 presents performance data obtained during bas-

ketball practice for each participant in the goal-setting intervention. Participants 1 and 4 seemed to benefit the most from this program. Participant 1's mean free- throw performance during practice improved 11 % from baseline to intervention, and the level increased, but the variability of scores increased, and the trend decreased from baseline to intervention. There was no latency effect shown between the baseline and intervention phase. Participant 4's mean free-throw performance during practice improved 22% from baseline to intervention, the trend and level increased, and the variability of scores decreased from baseline to intervention. However, there was a slight latency effect between baseline and intervention.

20

I8

16

14

3 l2 10

8

6

20

18

I6

14

4 l2

10

8

6 0 2 4 6 8 LO 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 3 6 38

Sessions

Figure 1 - Free-throw performance for goal-setting participants.


There was a large increase in variability of scores for each participant from intervention to the second baseline phase. Specifically, standard deviations increased 1.06, 1.32, 1.31, and .62 for Participants 1 through 4, respectively. Further, Partici- pant 1's mean free-throw performance during practice declined 9% from intervention to second baseline, the trend decreased, but the level did not change.

Goal Discrepancy. Participants 1 and 4 set the most realistic and attain- able goals. Specifically, Participant 1's mean absolute goal discrepancy was 1.3, and she exhibited a mean overall goal discrepancy of -.5 during the intervention phase. In other words, the closer these goal-discrepancy values reached zero, the more precise the participant was when setting her personal goal for each session during intervention. Participant 4's mean absolute goal discrepancy was .5, and a mean overall goal discrepancy of -.5 during the intervention phase.

Goal-Setting and Image y Internention

Performance. Figure 2 represents the free-throw shooting performance data for each participant in the goal-setting and imagery intervention during practice.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 3 0 32 34 36 3 8

Sessions

Figure 2 - Free-throw performance for goal-setting and imagery participants.


In particular, Participant 1 improved the most from baseline to intervention. Her mean free-throw performance during practice improved 6% from baseline to intervention, and the trend and level increased, but the variability of scores increased from baseline to intervention. However, there was a slight latency effect shown.

Interestingly, Participant 4 improved from intervention to the second baseline phase of practice. Her mean free-throw performance increased by 14%, and the trend, level, and variability of scores increased. There was no latency between the intervention and second baseline phase. However, Participant 2's mean free-throw performance declined by 7% from intervention to second baseline, the trend increased, but the level and variability of scores decreased. There was a slight latency effect displayed.

Goal Discrepancy. Participants 3 and 4 set the most realistic and attain- able goals. Specifically, Participant 3's mean absolute goal discrepancy was .7, and she exhibited a mean overall goal discrepancy of -. 1 during the intervention phase. Participant 4's mean absolute goal discrepancy was .7, and a mean overall goal discrepancy of -.5 during the intervention phase.

Image y Intervention Performance. Figure 3 represents the free-throw shooting performance

data for each participant in the imagery intervention during practice. No participants improved from baseline to intervention. Further, Participant 3's mean free- throw performance declined by 4%, the trend and variability of scores increased, but the level did not change. There was a latency effect exhibited from baseline to intervention.

Participant 3 returned to her original performance level as she improved in free-throw performance from intervention to the second baseline phase of practice. Her mean free-throw performance increased by 4%, the level and variability of scores increased, but the trend decreased. There was a latency effect between the intervention and second baseline phase.

Correlations A Spearman rank-order correlation was calculated on the data collected during intervention to examine the relationship of participants' (n = 8) scores on free- throw performance and personal goals. A significant positive relationship was found between free-throw performance and personal goals during intervention for the two goal-setting groups, r = .95, p < .05.

Manipulation Check All participants responded to two manipulation check item questions during the intervention: (a) "Did you use the intervention today?'and (b) "Did you experience any problems in using the intervention today?'It was revealed that 3 out of 4 participants in the imagery condition applied the intervention of imagery 4 to 6 times, whereas all 4 of the participants in the goal-setting condition used the goal- setting procedures every session. The athletes reported using the specified intervention (i.e., goal-setting andlor imagery) in order to concentrate and perform better, and to evaluate their performance. However, the participants stated in their log books that they sometimes did not use imagery since they were not in the mood, and because the imagery tape made them think too much about the actual movements


20

18

16

14

4 12

10

8

6

0 2 4 6 8 I0 I2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Sessions

Figure 3 - Free-throw performance for imagery participants.

involved in their own free-throw shooting. Each athlete stated the log book itself did not provide motivation for the improvement in their free-throw performance. Finally, it was revealed each participant did not use their strategy during the postintervention phase (A2).

Discussion The overall findings for this study indicated the goal-setting intervention increased practice basketball free-throw performance more than the goal-setting and imagery intervention. However, imagery participants actually decreased their free-throw performance levels. Overall, the intervention programs seemed well-designed. However, the results were not as effective as expected. One explanation may be that free-throw shooting is a complex task and 10 sessions may not have been long enough to demonstrate significant increments in shooting accuracy.


Two participants in the goal-setting intervention improved their mean and level free-throw performances from baseline to intervention. Two of the 4 participants decreased their mean-performance levels from intervention to the second baseline phase. Further, one participant in the goal-setting and imagery condition increased her mean and level free-throw performance from baseline to intervention. One of the 4 participants decreased her mean-performance level from intervention to the second baseline phase. These results are similar to the findings reported by Swain and Jones (1995). They conducted a single-subject design study and found 3 of the 4 participants showed improvements in basketball performance (i.e., rebounds, steals, and turnovers) following the goal-setting intervention phase.

No participants in the imagery program improved their mean and level free- throw performance from baseline to intervention. All 4 participants increased their mean-performance levels from intervention to the second baseline phase. The current results are contrary to Kearns and Crossman (1992), in that, their single-subject design demonstrated increased free-throw basketball performance levels in all 3 participants as they adopted a mental-rehearsal intervention over the course of the basketball season.

Perhaps the goal-setting condition was most effective because participants believed the program helped them set realistic goals in order to improve their free- throw performance. This was supported via the high positive correlation exhibited between free-throw performance and personal goals. Further, they stated in their log books that goal-setting allowed them to form a specific "mind set" that incorporated a more consistent manner of shooting free-throws, which made them more relaxed. Additionally, the intervention may have helped the participants shoot better by mainly concentrating on the specific goal that was set instead of any other factors (i.e., body aches and pains, upcoming practice, and school work).

The imagery condition was not successful as anticipated perhaps because the participants stated they simply thought too much about the actual movements they made when shooting the free-throws. They analyzed their shooting technique as they listened to the imagery tape, which led to a decrease in performance during the intervention phase. This decrement in performance (i.e., movement became less automatized) may have occurred because participants were thinking too much, which can actually interfere with the development of attaining a proper attentional state necessary for skillful performance (Feltz & Landers, 1983). Additionally, two participants stated this program might have been better if they were able to listen to the tape on a more frequent basis (i.e., at least once a day). However, each participant increased her performance from intervention to the second baseline phase. This may have been because the imagery techniques that were taught to each participant needed time in order to be incorporated into their regular repertoire (supporting the psychoneuromuscular theory; see Vealey & Walter, 1993). Therefore, time constraints may have been a main reason as to why imagery did not work initially. However, consistent with the Kearns and Crossman (1992) study, participants mentioned at the conclusion of the study that imagery was now a part of their free-throw shooting routine.

Another explanation for the decrements in performance exhibited by imagery participants is individual differences. It should be noted not everyone can "image" well, which leads to individual differences in the use of imagery (Vealey & Walter, 1993). It may have been helpful to obtain an initial measure of imagery skill. Additionally, it is impossible to actually tell if imagery was used and


incorporated by participants, because it is "private" or "covert" behavior as op- posed to goal-setting, which is "overt" and "measurable" behavior. Also, individual differences exist among learning and personality strategies employed in imagery use (Vealey & Walter, 1993). In particular, participants learned how to use imagery via an auditory tape. It is possible these individuals learn better from a visual perspective, which would help explain the decrements found in the intervention phase among the imagery participants. Further, personality styles may have contributed to the decreased performance levels, in that, these athletes may have had a preference for assimilating the imagery information through a "sixth sense" instead of through the 5 senses that were incorporated in each imagery tape (Hirsh & Kumrnerow, 1990). Specifically, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator describes this style as "what a person attends to in a specific situation" (i.e., intuition vs. sens- ing). It would be of interest to administer the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator prior to testing in order to identify personality styles in which to examine the effects of this variable on free-throw performance.

The goal-setting and imagery condition also was not as successful as anticipated. Although participants reported that setting goals helped them concentrate more on their free-throw performance, the imagery portion may have made them think about shooting too much instead of just doing it. Interestingly, however, one of the participants in this group led both the team and basketball conference in free-throw percentage. She felt more focused and patient in the intervention phase as she developed a consistent technique by combining both goal-setting and imagery procedures. Again, this points to the existence of individual differences that may have been apparent when imagery was used.

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. This adds further support to the impact that goal-setting had within this study. As the participants progressed throughout the intervention program of goal-setting, they reported feeling more relaxed, focused, and concentrated on their own specific, personal goal.

Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The implementation of the intervention after baseline was associated with a more rapid change in performance than the institution of the second baseline phase after intervention. Again, this adds further support that goal-setting worked for the majority of the participants within this study. In particular, participants stated that during the baseline phase, they shot free-throws without thinking about a specific technique. However, once the intervention program was instituted, their performance increased as they set ap- propriate goals for themselves, which caused a short latency period between the first 2 phases. Further, once the intervention was discontinued, the effects of goal- setting did not dissipate easily since it is hard to unlearn the process of setting goals.

Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. The second baseline performance may have fluctuated for many reasons. One reason may be because once the specific program and the regularly practiced routine had been terminated, participants were confused about the technique to use during the second baseline phase. As a result, they fluctuated back and forth between what they learned during the intervention phase and what they normally did prior to this study. Further, participants reported in their log books that they were distracted during the second baseline phase because there was nothing on which to focus and concentrate.

A significant correlation coefficient was observed between free-throw performance during the intervention phase and personal goals. Therefore, Hypothesis


5 was fully supported. This correlation helps strengthen the effectiveness of the goal-setting program because higher personal goals were associated with an increase in free-throw performance during the intervention phase. Improvements had been made in free-throw performance, but overall goal-setting accuracy scores proved to be lower than expected. These results seem to contradict Burton's (1989) finding that participants who were highly accurate in setting goals demonstrated better performance.

The results of this study support the effectiveness of improving practice free- throw performance using a goal-setting intervention program. Overall, the team finished first in their conference in free-throw percentage (69%), which resulted in the team's highest free-throw percentage in the last 15 years. However, future research should further examine combining goal-setting and imagery into a training program. In particular, it should be employed in other sports in order to examine the generalizability of similar interventions. Additionally, research should focus on the effects of a goal-setting and imagery training program, comparing collegiate athletes to high school athletes. It could be that collegiate athletes incor- porate this type of intervention into their regular free-throw shooting repertoire easier and more often than others because they are more advanced developmen- tally. Finally, the intervention program should be implemented over a longer period of time. A longer competitive season or even two seasons would provide more game data to compare the effects with practice data. Further, the findings revealed from the second baseline (i.e., the high degree of variability) add support to this line of research in that a more pronounced change in free-throw performance between phases may be found if the intervention program was incorporated for a longer period of time.

Despite the extension of the methodology to many different areas of research, the tendency still exists to regard single-subject research designs as restricted in focus. It is important to examine single-subject research designs more generally to convey their essential characteristics (Kazdin, 1982). Specifically, a problem with a large-N design is that it does not provide information about the performance of a certain individual. Instead, data are collapsed across group in order to compare one group to another. However, individuals who perform sporadically or very low are lost within a group.

On the other hand, a small-N design permits researchers to rigorously evaluate the effects of specific interventions with the individual case. In particular, this design requires continuous assessment of behavior over time. This is used as a basis for drawing inferences about intervention effects. Further, intervention effects are replicated within the same participant throughout the study. They serve as their own controls, and comparisons of participant's performances are made as different conditions are implemented over time. The net effect of these characteristics enable researchers to contribute directly to scientific knowledge about intervention effects, and establish general relationships otherwise not available from uncontrolled cases. Thus, researchers should employ this type of design more often in order to advance its credibility within the scientific community.

References Barr, K., & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 23,243-261.

396 Lerner, Ostrow, Yura, and Efzel

Bryan, A.J. (1987). Single-subject designs for evaluation of sport psychology interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 1,283-292.

Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn't everything: Examining the impact of performance goals on collegiate swimmers' cognitions and performance. The Sport Psyclzologist, 3,105- 132.

Duda, J.L. (1985, October). The relationship between motivationalperspective andpartici- pation and persistence in sport. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Cana- dian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, University of Que- bec, Montreal.

Dweck, C.S., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex differences in learned helplessness: 11. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom, and 111. An experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14,268-276.

Ewing, M.E. (1981). Achievement orientations and sport behavior of males and females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,25-57.

Gould, D. (1983). Developing psychological skills in young athletes. In N.L. Wood (Ed.), Coaching science update (pp. 133-148). Ottawa, ON: Coaching Association of Canada.

Gould, D. (1993). Goal-setting for peak performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak pe$ormance (pp. 158-169). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Greenspan, M.J., & Feltz, D.L. ( I 989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A review. The Sport Psychologist, 3,219-236.

Grouios, G. (1992). The effect of mental practice on diving performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23,60-69.

Hall, H.K., & Byrne, A.T.J. (1988). Goal-setting in sport: Clarifying recent anomalies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 184- 198.

Hanis, D.V., & Harris, B.L. (1984). The athlete S guide to sportspsychology: Mental skills for physical people. New York: Leisure Press.

Hirsh, S.K., & Kummerow, J.M. (1990). Introduction to type in organizations: Individual interpretive guide (2nd ed.) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Hughes, S. (1990). Implementing psychological skills training program in high school ath- letics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13, 15-22.

Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kearns, D.W., & Crossman, J. (1992). Effects of a cognitive intervention package on the free-throw performance of varsity basketball players during practice and competition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1243-1253.

Kendall, G., Hrycaiko, D., Martin, G.L., & Kendall, T. (1990). The effects of an imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk package on basketball game performance. Jour- nal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 157-166.

Locke, E.A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports-and their solution. Jour- nal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13,311-3 16.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task pe$ormance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mahoney, M.J., &Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135-141.


Meyers, A.W., & Schleser, R. (1980). A cognitive behavioral intervention for improving basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2,69-73.

Miller, J.T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Effects of a goal-setting training program on basketball free-throw self-efficacy and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 103-113.

Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics. Rotella, R.J., Gansneder, B., Ojala, D., & Biling, J. (1980). Cognitions and coping strate-

gies of elite skiers: An exploratory study of young developing athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2,350-354.

Ryan, E.D., & Simons, J. (1981). Cognitive demand, imagery, and frequency of mental rehearsal as factors influencing acquisition of motor skills. Journal of Sport Psychol- ogy, 3,35-45.

Ryan, E.D., & Simons, J. (1982). Efficacy of mental imagery in enhancing mental rehearsal of motor skills. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,41-51.

Smith, R.E. (1988). The logic and design of case study research. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 1-12.

Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1995). Effects of goal-setting interventions on selected basketball skills: A single-subject design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 51- 63.

Vealey, R.S. (1994). Current status and prominent issues in sport psychology interventions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26,495-502.

Vealey, R.S., & Walter, S.M. (1993). Imagery training for performance enhancement and personal development. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sportpsychology: Personal growth to peakpe$omance (pp. 200-224). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Weinberg, R.S. (1994). Goal-setting and performance in sport and exercise settings: A syn- thesis and critique. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26,469-477.

White, K.D., Ashton, R., & Lewis, S. (1979). Learning a complex skill: Effects of mental practice, physical practice, and imagery ability. International Journal of Sport Psy- chology, 10,71-78.

Wollman, N . (1986). Research on imagery and motor performance: Three methodological suggestions. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 135-138.

Wrisberg, C.A., & Anshel, M.H. (1989). The effect of cognitive strategies on the free-throw shooting performance of young athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 3,95-104.

Manuscript submitted: June 1995 Revision received: March I996

the effects of goal-setting and imagery training programs on … · 2018-06-09 · the spori...

Documents