Cited by 52Sport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education ResearchMotor Control and Adaptation

External-Focus Feedback Benefits Free-Throw Learning in Children

Perreault, Melanie E., French, Karen E.·2015·Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Abstract

PURPOSE: Considerable research supports the motor-learning advantage associated with an external focus of attention; however, very few studies have attempted to generalize these findings to children especially with attentional focus feedback. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of attentional focus feedback on motor learning in children. METHOD: Boys (n = 14) and girls (n = 14) aged 9 to 11 years old were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 gender-stratified groups: (a) internal-focus feedback or (b) external-focus feedback. Following initial instructions and task demonstration, participants performed 100 modified free throws over 2 days while receiving feedback statements respective to their attentional focus condition. Approximately 24 hr later, participants performed a retention test consisting of 20 additional free throws. Participants were also asked to respond to a retrospective verbal report at the end of each day to serve as a manipulation check. RESULTS: Results of the analysis revealed a statistically significant learning advantage for participants receiving external-focus feedback, and retrospective verbal reports provide support for the self-invoking trigger and constrained action hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should continue to incorporate retrospective verbal reports and explore potential causal links between internal attentional focus and self-evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02701367.2015.1051613

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Children given internal-focus feedback report more self-evaluative content than those given external-focus feedback.

    “Children between the ages of 9 and 11 years practiced basketball free-throws and were given internal-or external-focus feedback.In response to the question about what they were thinking at the conclusion of the experiment, those in the internal focus group reported more self-evaluative content (36-57%) than did participants in the external focus group (7-21%).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perreault, M. E., & French, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Mississippi (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Perreault, Melanie E.
Venue
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
Published
2015-07-31
Volume
86
Issue
4
Pages
422-427
ISSN
  • 0034-5377 (ISSN-L)
  • 0270-1367
  • 2168-3824
OpenAlex
W1547307910
Cited by
52
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aquila Digital Community (University of Southern Mississippi) (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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
external attention, internal focus, motor learning, feedback, free throw shooting, children, retention, self-assessment, constrained action hypothesis
MeSH terms
Attention, Child, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Motor Skills, Retrospective Studies, Feedback, Psychological

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