↓ Skip to main content

The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths Among Sports Coaches

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
396 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Prevalence of Pseudoscientific Ideas and Neuromyths Among Sports Coaches
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00641
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard P. Bailey, Daniel J. Madigan, Ed Cope, Adam R. Nicholls

Abstract

There has been an exponential growth in research examining the neurological basis of human cognition and learning. Little is known, however, about the extent to which sports coaches are aware of these advances. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas among British and Irish sports coaches. In total, 545 coaches from the United Kingdom and Ireland completed a measure that included questions about how evidence-based theories of the brain might enhance coaching and learning, how they were exposed to these different theories, and their awareness of neuromyths. Results revealed that the coaches believed that an enhanced understanding of the brain helped with their planning and delivery of sports sessions. Goal-setting was the most frequently used strategy. Interestingly, 41.6% of the coaches agreed with statements that promoted neuromyths. The most prevalent neuromyth was "individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, or kinesthetic)," which 62% of coaches believed. It is apparent that a relatively large percentage of coaches base aspects of their coaching practice on neuromyths and other pseudoscientific ideas. Strategies for addressing this situation are briefly discussed and include changing the content of coach education programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 396 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 19 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 12 5%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 74 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 67 26%
Psychology 32 13%
Social Sciences 16 6%
Neuroscience 11 4%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 84 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 365. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#88,995
of 25,810,956 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#166
of 34,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,121
of 340,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#7
of 627 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,810,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 340,101 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 627 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.