| Title |
Development of a Skill Acquisition Periodisation Framework for High-Performance Sport
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-016-0646-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Damian Farrow, Sam Robertson |
| Abstract |
Unlike physical training, skill acquisition does not currently utilise periodisation to plan, monitor and evaluate programs. Development of a skill acquisition periodisation framework would allow for systematic investigation into the acute and longitudinal effectiveness of such interventions. Using the physical training literature as a reference point, a skill-training periodisation framework was developed for use in high-performance sport. Previous research undertaken in skill acquisition was used to provide support for the framework. The specificity, progression, overload, reversibility and tedium (SPORT) acronym was adopted. Each principle was then re-conceptualised so that it related to relevant skill acquisition principles. Methods for the measurement and analysis of each principle are provided and future directions for the longitudinal assessment of skill acquisition are discussed. The skill acquisition periodisation framework proposed in this study represents an opportunity for the principles relating to skill acquisition training to be measured in a systematic and holistic manner. This can also allow for a more sophisticated evaluation of the efficacy of longitudinal training programmes and interventions designed for sustained skill enhancement. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 126 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 25 | 20% |
| United States | 16 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 9% |
| Canada | 6 | 5% |
| Ireland | 6 | 5% |
| South Africa | 5 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 3 | 2% |
| Singapore | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 40 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 83 | 66% |
| Scientists | 37 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Singapore | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 405 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 81 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 59 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 10% |
| Researcher | 26 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 25 | 6% |
| Other | 81 | 20% |
| Unknown | 97 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 227 | 56% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 3% |
| Psychology | 11 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 8% |
| Unknown | 104 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2022.
All research outputs
#530,009
of 25,591,967 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#505
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,711
of 416,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,591,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.