Examining The Effects Of External Vs Internal Cueing In The 5-10-5 Change Of Direction Drill

Research has shown beneficial results of using an external focus of attention when completing athletic movements. When an athlete is asked to focus externally, this contributes to motor behavior happening automatically. Previous literature has focused predominantly on examining external and internal cueing in accuracy, balance, and jumping events. However, there appears to be a void in the literature when it comes to performance testing for change of direction (COD). PURPOSE: To compare the impact that focusing attention externally, focusing attention internally, and no focus of attention has on COD finishing times. METHODS: Thirty highly fit collegiate subjects completed a total of 15 trials in the 5-10-5 COD drill. Subjects were asked to read a set of instructions that would induce an external (EXT) or internal (INT) focus of attention, while the control (CON) condition would induce no specific attention condition. Subjects completed five drills of the control and returned to the lab 48 and 96 hours later and completed the EXT or INT set of instructions in a counterbalanced order. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to calculate the differences between EXT, INT, and CON. The alpha level was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Since sphericity was not met, the Greenhouse Geisser was used for our within-subjects effect. A significant difference of time was found overall between the three conditions (F(1.286,30) = 32.530, p = < .001). A post hoc pairwise analysis with Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant difference between all three groups. EXT (5.049, ± .077 s) was significantly (p < .001) different vs CON (5.201, ± .082 s) and significantly (p < .002) different vs INT (5.087 ± .081 s), while INT was significantly (p < .001) different vs CON. Of note, the effect size was large (partial eta squared = .529). CONCLUSION: The results suggest when subjects directed their attention EXT, faster COD times did occur as compared to INT and CON conditions, while INT produced faster times than CON. Therefore, it could be suggested that sporting coaches consider implementing external cueing with their athletes to achieve success when performing movement-related tasks. Future studies may be needed to assess the impact that external vs internal cueing has on other agility and change of direction tests such as T-drill, Z-drill, Y-shaped, etc.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001059916.36744.41
Primary Topic
Engineering Applied Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Examining The Effects Of External Vs Internal Cueing In The 5-10-5 Change Of Direction Drill

Tristan Ryan Faust, Connor Pells, Andy Bosak
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Engineering Applied Research
article

Examining The Effects Of External Vs Internal Cueing In The 5-10-5 Change Of Direction Drill

Tristan Ryan Faust, Connor Pells, Andy Bosak
article en

Abstract

Research has shown beneficial results of using an external focus of attention when completing athletic movements. When an athlete is asked to focus externally, this contributes to motor behavior happening automatically. Previous literature has focused predominantly on examining external and internal cueing in accuracy, balance, and jumping events. However, there appears to be a void in the literature when it comes to performance testing for change of direction (COD). PURPOSE: To compare the impact that focusing attention externally, focusing attention internally, and no focus of attention has on COD finishing times. METHODS: Thirty highly fit collegiate subjects completed a total of 15 trials in the 5-10-5 COD drill. Subjects were asked to read a set of instructions that would induce an external (EXT) or internal (INT) focus of attention, while the control (CON) condition would induce no specific attention condition. Subjects completed five drills of the control and returned to the lab 48 and 96 hours later and completed the EXT or INT set of instructions in a counterbalanced order. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to calculate the differences between EXT, INT, and CON. The alpha level was set at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Since sphericity was not met, the Greenhouse Geisser was used for our within-subjects effect. A significant difference of time was found overall between the three conditions (F(1.286,30) = 32.530, p = < .001). A post hoc pairwise analysis with Bonferroni adjustment revealed a significant difference between all three groups. EXT (5.049, ± .077 s) was significantly (p < .001) different vs CON (5.201, ± .082 s) and significantly (p < .002) different vs INT (5.087 ± .081 s), while INT was significantly (p < .001) different vs CON. Of note, the effect size was large (partial eta squared = .529). CONCLUSION: The results suggest when subjects directed their attention EXT, faster COD times did occur as compared to INT and CON conditions, while INT produced faster times than CON. Therefore, it could be suggested that sporting coaches consider implementing external cueing with their athletes to achieve success when performing movement-related tasks. Future studies may be needed to assess the impact that external vs internal cueing has on other agility and change of direction tests such as T-drill, Z-drill, Y-shaped, etc.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
Liberty University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Engineering Applied Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.