Cited by 56Sport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education ResearchSports Performance and Training

Helping coaches apply the principles of representative learning design: validation of a tennis specific practice assessment tool

Krause, Lyndon, Farrow, Damian, Reid, Machar, Buszard, Tim, Pinder, Ross·2018·Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract

Representative Learning Design (RLD) is a framework for assessing the degree to which experimental or practice tasks simulate key aspects of specific performance environments (i.e. competition). The key premise being that when practice replicates the performance environment, skills are more likely to transfer. In applied situations, however, there is currently no simple or quick method for coaches to assess the key concepts of RLD (e.g. during on-court tasks). The aim of this study was to develop a tool for coaches to efficiently assess practice task design in tennis. A consensus-based tool was developed using a 4-round Delphi process with 10 academic and 13 tennis-coaching experts. Expert consensus was reached for the inclusion of seven items, each consisting of two sub-questions related to (i) the task goal and (ii) the relevance of the task to competition performance. The Representative Practice Assessment Tool (RPAT) is proposed for use in assessing and enhancing practice task designs in tennis to increase the functional coupling between information and movement, and to maximise the potential for skill transfer to competition contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640414.2017.1374684

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krause, L., Farrow, D., Reid, M., Buszard, T., & Pinder, R.
Affiliations
  • Victoria University (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • Australian Paralympic Committee, Adelaide, Australia
Corresponding author
Krause, Lyndon
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Published
2017-09-14
Volume
36
Issue
11
Pages
1277-1286
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
OpenAlex
W2754904544
Cited by
56
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
Keywords
tennis, skill transfer, coach assessment, expert consensus, Delphi method, task goals, functional coupling
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Competitive Behavior, Delphi Technique, Humans, Motor Skills, Practice, Psychological, Task Performance and Analysis, Tennis, Transfer, Psychology

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