TY - JOUR
T1 - The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks
T2 - A systematic review with meta-analysis
AU - Kim, Taewon
AU - Jimenez-Diaz, Judith
AU - Chen, Jing
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Faculty of Education. University of Alicante.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Purpose: The present study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of attentional focus during balancing tasks in motor learning. Method: A literature search was conducted based on five electronic database searches, cross-referencing and expert review. Studies included randomized trials of external (EF) versus internal focus (IF). Risk of bias was assessed using a self-developed instrument. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pooled results. Heterogeneity was examined using the Q statistic and inconsistency using I2. Results: Of 790 studies screened, 16 representing 541 males and females and up to 17 ES met the inclusion criteria. Analyses indicated that the EF groups outperformed the IF groups for acquisition phase (ES= 0.48, n= 16; CI95%= 0.07 to 0.90, Q= 68.7, I2= 78.2%), retention (ES= 0.44, n= 17, CI95%= 0.14 to 0.74; Q= 26.1, I2= 38.6%), and transfer (ES= 1.41, n= 4, CI95%= 1.00 to 1.82, Q= 22, I2= 0%). Conclusion: The overall results suggest that EF results in better balance learning when compared to IF.
AB - Purpose: The present study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of attentional focus during balancing tasks in motor learning. Method: A literature search was conducted based on five electronic database searches, cross-referencing and expert review. Studies included randomized trials of external (EF) versus internal focus (IF). Risk of bias was assessed using a self-developed instrument. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pooled results. Heterogeneity was examined using the Q statistic and inconsistency using I2. Results: Of 790 studies screened, 16 representing 541 males and females and up to 17 ES met the inclusion criteria. Analyses indicated that the EF groups outperformed the IF groups for acquisition phase (ES= 0.48, n= 16; CI95%= 0.07 to 0.90, Q= 68.7, I2= 78.2%), retention (ES= 0.44, n= 17, CI95%= 0.14 to 0.74; Q= 26.1, I2= 38.6%), and transfer (ES= 1.41, n= 4, CI95%= 1.00 to 1.82, Q= 22, I2= 0%). Conclusion: The overall results suggest that EF results in better balance learning when compared to IF.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85022023938&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85022023938&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.14198/jhse.2017.122.22
DO - 10.14198/jhse.2017.122.22
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85022023938
SN - 1988-5202
VL - 12
SP - 463
EP - 479
JO - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
JF - Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
IS - 2
ER -