The objectives of this study were to determine the impact of different instructional constraints on standing board jump (sbj) performance in children and understand the underlying changes in emergent movement patterns. Two groups of novice participants were provided with either externally or internally focused attentional instructions during an intervention phase. Pre- and post-test sessions were undertaken to determine changes to performance and movement patterns. Thirty-six primary fourth-grade male students were recruited for this study and randomly assigned to either an external, internal focus or control group. Different instructional constraints with either an external focus (image of the achievement) or an internal focus (image of the act) were provided to the participants. Performance scores (jump distances), and data from key kinematic (joint range of motion, ROM) and kinetic variables (jump impulses) were collected. Instructional constraints with an emphasis on an external focus of attention were generally more effective in assisting learners to improve jump distances. Intra-individual analyses highlighted how enhanced jump distances for successful participants may be concomitant with specific changes to kinematic and kinetic variables. Larger joint ROM and adjustment to a comparatively larger horizontal impulse to a vertical impulse were observed for more successful participants at post-test performance. From a constraints-led perspective, the inclusion of instructional constraints encouraging self-adjustments in the control of movements (i.e., image of achievement) had a beneficial effect on individuals performing the standing broad jump task. However, the advantage of using an external focus of attentional instructions could be task- and individual-specific.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,957,511
of 26,555,952 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Sport Science
#1,451
of 1,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,834
of 215,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Sport Science
#18
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,555,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 215,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
