CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoverySport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education Research

Use of information feedback and attentional focus of feedback in treating the person with a hemiplegic arm

Durham, Katherine, Van Vliet, Paulette M., Badger, Frances, Sackley, Catherine·2009·Physiotherapy Research International
DOI 10.1002/pri.431
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and Purpose. Feedback about motor performance can induce either an internal focus of attention (about body movement) or an external focus of attention (about the effects on the environment) in the learner. The main aim of this pilot study was to examine the attentional focus of feedback given by physiotherapists during treatment of the hemiplegic arm. A second aim was to examine the frequency of feedback about motor performance during treatment. Method. A multi‐methods design was used (quantitative and qualitative). Eight physiotherapists and eight patients with stroke were recruited from two hospitals. Data were collected by video recordings of treatment, interviews (both therapists and patients) and questionnaire (therapists). Information feedback, instructions and motivational statements were identified from the video recordings. Feedback and instructions were further grouped into internal focus, external focus or mixed focus of attention. Themes were drawn from the interview transcripts. Triangulation was used to provide corroborating information from the different data sets. Results. Two hundred and forty‐six of the total 1914 statements identified in the videos were feedback, the rest comprising instructions and statements of motivation. Of the feedback statements, 236 of the total 247 identified had an internal focus. Therapist interviews and questionnaires revealed more external focus communication than actual treatment. Conclusions. Physiotherapists used instructions and statements of motivation more than feedback and directed the patient's attention more to body movement than movement effects. The outcome of this study may prompt clinicians' to examine the amount and the attentional focus of the feedback they use in their clinical practice, and to consider whether it is a most effective approach in light of current evidence. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pri.431

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Instructors predominantly use approaches that involve selecting tasks, describing how movements should be performed, giving corrective feedback, and instructions referring to body movement coordination.

    “In a typical scenario, the instructor (e.g., coach, physical therapist, music teacher) selects the tasks to be practiced, describes how movements should be performed, gives corrective feedback, and instructions that refer to the coordination of body movements.”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Durham et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Durham, K., Van Vliet, P. M., Badger, F., & Sackley, C.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Durham, Katherine
ORCID
Sackley, Catherine
Venue
Physiotherapy Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12-23
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
77-90
ISSN
  • 1358-2267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2865
DOI
10.1002/pri.431
OpenAlex
W2142978010
Cited by
125
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Physiotherapy Research International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Stroke Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
information feedback, attentional focus, internal focus, external focus, hemiplegia, stroke rehabilitation, motor learning
MeSH terms
Aged, Arm, Attention, Biofeedback, Psychology, Female, Health Surveys, Hemiplegia, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Patient Education as Topic, Pilot Projects, Videotape Recording, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review