The effect of the Interactive Self-talk and Mental Imagery program on Badminton Motor Skills and Self-Confident of Youth Beginner Student- Athletes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1845491/v1

Background: self-talk (ST) and mental imagery (MI) psychological strategies have an essential role in training and sports performance, but their implementation is still limited, especially when they are implemented in combination use. This study aimed to examine badminton motor skills (BMS) and self-confidence (SC) mastery after the ST and MI psychological strategy intervention, both in independent and interactive functions integrated into the BMS training process.

Methods: Eighty badminton beginner student-athletes aged years 11.4+52 years old (Male=40, Female=40) were divided through a disproportional stratified sampling into four experimental groups (EG: 2-function ST x 2-function MI) and one control group (CG). The intervention program was eight weeks (24 meetings and three times a week). Participants completed a fidelity check at each session. At the end of the intervention, they took a BMS test and completed a self-confidence scale.

Results: ST and MI strategies had a significant effect on the BMS and SC mastery (independent and interaction functions), in multivariate and univariate ways, except that, independently, they had no significant effect on SC. The effect of I-ST > M-ST and the effect of C-MI > M-MI on BMS, but there was no different effect on SC. In the M-MI function, the effect of I-ST > M-ST on the BMS and SC mastery. Meanwhile, in the C-MI function, I-ST and M-ST did not have a different interaction effect on BMS and the effect of M-ST > I -ST on SC in the C-MI function. In the M-ST function, the effect of C-MI > M-MI on BMS and SC, but there was no difference of the interaction effect on BMS in the I-ST condition.

Ethics approval: Centre of Research and Community Service, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Project No. B-1030/UN40.PL/PJ.00.00/2021), approval date: 25 June 2021.

Conclusion: The results of this study strengthen the evidence on the effectiveness of ST and MI strategies in motor skill mastery and psychological skill development of beginner student-athletes. Thus, ST and MI strategies can be adapted as psychological strategies that coaches and physical educators can use to improve beginner student-athlete's learning, sports performance, and psychological skills.

psychological strategy

badminton motor skill

self-confidence

mental imagery

self-talk

Clear lob and high service are badminton motor skills (BMS) that should be first taught and mastered by beginner student-athletes. Every badminton player needs to master these two BMS because these skills are the basis for developing more complex strokes at the next learning stage and become the initial barometer for categorizing the athlete’s ability as being able or not to play badminton at the most basic level [1,2]. Correct movement techniques in sports performances play an important role in the success of athletes from the early learning stage [3]. To be able to perform the two BMS well, an athlete requires not only physical and technical training but also psychological skill training (PST); two of the most frequently used psychological strategies are self-talk (ST) and mental imagery (MI) [4].

As a psychological strategy, ST is a multidimensional phenomenon interpreted as a statement about oneself manifested in positive or negative statements, open or closed, and has instructional and motivational functions [5]. ST can be used in a variety of motor tasks, participants, and contexts, such as for students in physical education class [6], elite athletes [7], and beginner student-athletes [5,8]. ST strategy has instructional (I-ST) and motivational (M-ST) functions. I-ST consists of instructional specific (IS-ST) to develop movement skills and instructional general (IG-ST) to improve performance and playing strategies. M-ST is divided into motivational arousal (MA-ST: to manage arousal level), motivational mastery (MM-ST: to increase attention, concentration, and self-confidence), and motivational drive functions (MD-ST: to increase motivation and effort) [9]. The ST strategy can be used alone (partial) or in combination with other PST strategies [10]. The strategy has been shown to be effective in improving motor performances in various sports [11–13], increasing self-confidence [14], self-efficacy [6,15], and exercise motivation [5,16], reducing anxiety [17], and managing attentional focus [18]. The results of the systematic review of Tod, Hardy, & Oliver [19] and a meta-analysis of the relationship between ST and sports performance [20] provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of ST strategy interventions in learning and sports performance.

As a multidimensional phenomenon, MI is defined as a representation of mental activity to imagine or recall an experience in mind using one or more sensory aspects [21] without the presence of an actual external stimulus. Conceptually, the MI strategy is divided into cognitive (C-MI) and motivational (M-MI) functions. C-MI is elaborated into cognitive specific (CS-MI: to develop skills) and cognitive general (CG-MI: to develop strategies), while M-MI is divided into motivational specific (MS-MI: to achieve goals), motivational general-arousal (MG-A-MI: to manage tension, anxiety, and arousal), and motivational general-mastery (MG-M-MI: to develop self-confidence, mental toughness, and attention) [22]. The MI strategy can be used at any time, in various situations, and for different purposes, before, during, and after training or competition, using cognitive and motivational functions [23]. The MI strategy can be used alone [24] or in combination with other PST strategies in a single intervention program [25].

Conceptual studies and research results show that MI can facilitate learning and sports performances [26,27] in various sports and participants, for example, in college students [28], high school student-athletes [29], adult elite athletes [30], child elite athletes [31], and child beginner athletes [1,32]. In addition, the MI strategy is also used to develop psychological aspects of various movement tasks in sports [21], such as for increasing motivation [33], self-confidence [34], and self-efficacy [35], and reducing anxiety [34].

Research on ST and MI strategies in sports activities has been widely carried out using various theoretical perspectives and methodological issues. However, it is generally partial. Although the research results show a positive effect of ST and MI on sports performances and the psychological aspects, some of the results of these studies are inconsistent (ST; [36]; MI: [24]). There is often confounding of results between types and function, both between I-ST and M-ST as well as between C-MI and M-MI. Even in beginner student-athlete participants, it was not only inconsistent but also limited (ST:[11]; MI: [37]), especially when the two strategies are combined using a nomothetic design. Several studies have been conducted, including comparative research on the effect of a combination of ST and MI strategies (positive and negative) on self-efficacy and dart-throwing skills of 95 students [25] and dart-throwing mastery of athletes aged 12–16 years [38], and on self-efficacy development [39].

Research on the interaction function of ST and MI strategies in relation to mastery of BMS and SC is limited, especially in badminton and the beginner child-athlete group. In fact, in Indonesia (perhaps), it does not exist. In this study, each independent variable has two functional categories: the ST strategy function (I-ST and M-ST) and the MI strategy function (C-MI and M-MI). The theoretical justifications used to explain the effect of the ST strategy interaction with MI on BMS include the Dual Coding Model (DC-Model [40]) and the Action Language Imagination Model (ALI Model, [41]). According to those models, the information needed in learning motor skills and sports performance comes from nonverbal and verbal information channel systems. Both channel systems can be inherently linked in the learning or training process. Meanwhile, its effect on self-confidence is abstracted from self-efficacy theory [42] which places past performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, and verbal persuasion as important antecedents that can affect the individual self-efficacy perception.

The urgency of implementing a combination of ST and MI strategy functions in sports activities, besides the inconsistency of the previous study results, is the gap between the conception of understanding the important role of ST and MI strategies as “das-sollen-what should be” and its implementation in the field as “das sein-what is happening”. The application of ST and MI strategies in badminton coaching is scarce, especially for beginner student-athletes as the largest population, in the age level, of badminton coaching. In BMS development, as a type of skill that beginner student-athletes must first be mastered, it becomes the basis for the development of other more complex basic skills, varies with the development of physical abilities, tactical skills, and psychological skills in a multidirectional manner, including with SC as one of the psychological skills, and becomes a foundation skill in the PST process.

In this constellation, this research was aimed at testing the level of BMS and SC mastery based on the ST (I-ST, M-ST) and MI (C-MI, M-MI) strategy intervention, both partial function (main effect) and interactive function (interaction effect) integrated into two BMS training process, and without ST and MI intervention (only doing two BMS mastery training) for beginner student-athletes aged 10–12 years at a badminton school in Bandung City. Allegedly, ST and MI strategies have a significant effect on BMS and SC mastery, either jointly or partially (hypothesis 1, 1a, 1b and 2, 2a, 2b), ST and MI strategies have an interaction effect on BMS and SC mastery, either jointly or partially (Hypothesis 3, 3a, 3b), and BMS mastery of student-athletes treated with I-ST or C-MI is higher than those given M-ST or M-MI intervention (hypothesis 4a and 4b).

Design

This study has two independent variables, namely ST (I-ST, M-ST) and MI (C-MI, M-MI) strategies, and two dependent variables, namely BMS and SC. According to each independent variable category, there are four EGs, namely the combination of I-ST/C-MI (EG-1), I-ST/M-MI (EG-2), M-ST/C-MI (EG- 3), and M-ST/M-MI (EG-4). Each group was manipulated to examine its effect on the dependent variable partially and interactively. A 2 x 2 factorial design was used. The research hypothesis was tested with post-test measures on the dependent variables BMS and SC, as has been conducted by [5,43,44]. The pre-test measurement of BMS was not carried out because the participants were beginner student-athletes who did not yet have BMS and were assigned randomly into five groups.

Participant

The participants of this study were beginner student-athletes at Badminton Schools in Bandung City. The inclusivity characteristics included: (1) male and female beginner athletes aged 10–12 years, (2) registered as student-athletes at badminton schools in Bandung City, and (3) signed and returned the informed consent. A CONSORT study flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were 148 beginner student-athlete, consisting of 78male student-athletes and 70 female beginner athletes. Furthermore, to select and determine participants into the experimental and control groups, the following stages were carried out: (1) all parents of participants filled out informed consent; according to the informed consent, there were 129 student-athletes stating that they were willing to be involved in intervention activities, consisting of 62 male student-athletes and 67 female student-athletes; (2) selecting and determining 100 participants to be involved in the intervention through a disproportionate stratified sampling technique [44], consisting of 50 male beginner student-athletes and 50 female beginner student-athletes; (3) assigning all randomly selected participants to be matched (blocked random assignment) into five groups, each group consisted of 20 people, 10 male beginner student-athletes and 10 female beginner student-athletes; (4) each group of participants was assigned randomly to all treatment combinations so that each group of participants got one treatment combination, while one group of participants became the control group.

The research team conducted this randomisation process in a blinded manner to keep the participants from knowing their participation in the study, either as part of the experimental or control group. Furthermore, based on the accumulation of attendance during the intervention process, only data of 16 people from each group were determined to finally be analysed. The data of the rest of the participants were not analysed because they did not meet the number of attendances during the experimental process. Therefore, the number of participants included in the data analysis were 80 people, aged 10–12 years (M_age = 11.4, SD_age = .52), consisting of 40 male beginner-student athletes (M_age =11.3, SD_age = .58) and 40 female beginner athletes (M_age = 11.5, SD_age = .48) (see Table 1).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Subject Demographic Characteristics in Each Group
Group	Demographic Characteristic Variables
	Age		Height		Weight
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
EG-1 (NG = 16); N_Ma = 8, N_Fe = 8	11.1	0.78	137.54	5.7	30.48	4.75
EG-2 (NG = 16); N_Ma = 8, N_Fe = 8	11.5	0.58	141.38	9.06	36.94	11.67
EG-3 (NG = 16); N_Ma = 8, N_Fe = 8	11.5	0.37	143.67	5.14	35.88	7.92
EG-4 (NG = 16); N_Ma = 8, N_Fe = 8	11.5	0.57	142.73	7.81	36.61	12.54
CG-5 (NG = 16); N_Ma = 8, N_Fe = 8	11.6	0.31	139.31	6.18	34.31	6.23
Total Subject = 80	11.4	0.52	140.93	6.78	34.84	8.62
Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; EG-1 – EG-4 = Experiment group 1–4; CG = Control group; NG = Number of participants in a group; N_Ma = Number of male participants in a group; N_Fe = Number of female participants in a group;

Measures

Badminton Motor Skill Test (BMS Test)

The BMS test refers to the learning outcome of badminton basic skill test (LOBBS) test: [5], measuring the ability of participants in doing clear lob and high service-BS tests) on the outcome-based test (OBT) aspect and process-based test (PBT) aspect in the preparation and hitting phase dimensions. The analysis results of the internal consistency estimation produced a correlation coefficient value of Alpha Cronbach .92. Interclass reliability used Person Product Moment (PPM), r = .84 to .94 for OBT and .80 to .85 for PBT. From the PPM correlation analysis for criterion-related validity of OBT using a concurrent validity approach and the criteria for the assessment results of five expert judgment panels on the BMS movement process, a correlation coefficient of .72 was obtained. From the factorial validity process of the PBT test using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the factor loading (FL) value obtained from all indicators were between .60 − .84.

Self Confidence Scale (SCS)

The SCS measured the level of student-athlete confidence in their ability to succeed in performing the BMS after completing the intervention program. The development of SCS was based on the SC multidimensional model in sports [45], consisting of the cognitive efficiency (CE-D), physical skills and training (PST-D), and resilience dimensions (R-D). The trial on 254 respondents obtained an estimated index of internal consistency reliability Alpha Cronbach SCS = .91 (48 items), CE-D = .76 (18 items), PST-D = .71 (12 items), and R-D = .78 (18 items). The estimated factorial validity using CFA obtained 32 valid items (FL = .52 to .82), consisting of 12 CE-D items (FL = .67 to .78), 8 PST-D items (FL = .57 to .81), and 12 R-D items (FL = .52 to .78).

Fidelity Check

The ST fidelity check was carried out to ensure that the participants used ST during practice in accordance with what was taught in the understanding indicators of how to use ST, the level and frequency of ST use, the most frequently used ST, the benefits of using ST, and reasons for not using ST, including no reasons, not sure about the benefits, and did not know how to do it [5]. The MI fidelity check aimed to ensure the implementation of MI training on understanding indicators of the process (how to do), content, perspective, and benefits of MI [46,47]. ST and MI fidelity checks were given immediately after each intervention meeting by providing a set of questions that participants had to answer from the first to the last meeting.

Intervention and Procedure

Research stages: the research was carried out in three stages, including the preparation, implementation, and evaluation stages. The preparatory stage consisted of preparing and validating ST and MI training modules and programs, as well as implementing ST and MI in education and training for coaches in workshops and coaching practical training [2]. The implementation stage consisted of sub-stages of education, training, and evaluation. The education sub-stage contained program socialisation activities to participants in two class meetings, each meeting consisted of 120 minutes [1]. The training sub-stage was an intervention implementation activity for 11 weeks (24 meetings, three times per week, 130 minutes for each meeting), from July to September 2021. Before the intervention, all participants took measurements of demographic variables (age, weight, and height), followed by the implementation of the intervention from the opening stage (30 minutes: attendance, explanation of training objectives, demonstration of BMS and ST instructions, external MI training, and warm-up), core training stage (80 minutes: BMS acquisition, game training, and use of ST in every training session, except CG), and closing stage (20 minutes: internal MI training, ST and MI manipulation check, and cooling down activities). According to the combination of ST, MI, and CG function categories, there were five groups of treatment combinations, namely (1) EG-1: I-ST/C-MI and mastery of BMS, (2) EG-2: I-ST/M-MI and mastery of BMS, (3) EG-3: combination of M-ST/C-MI treatment and mastery of BMS, (4) EG-4: M-ST/M-MI and mastery of BMS, and (5) CG: mastery of BMS. The evaluation stage consisted of measuring BMS and filling in SCS immediately after the 24th meeting.

Stages and approach of intervention: ST incorporation was based on the following stages: (1) elaborating the motor skills to be mastered into specific movement parts, (2) developing an applicative framework, (3) socialising the ST strategy to participants, (4) giving assistance and social feedback during the intervention, and (5) giving manipulation checks (2). The applicable framework used was the “four Ws: where, when, what, and why” [2,9], while the intervention type was assigned-ST [12,48]. ST was used in the BMS training process (where), before, during, and after performing the movement (when). The cue nature of ST was positive, singular or specific or general phrases, using the first person singular (what) and based on the I-ST and M-ST functions (why). The I-ST cues for clear lob-BS included ready, see the shuttlecock, cross steps, behind the shuttlecock, open-shoulders, front-ears, hit, high-straight, whip’s end, cross swing, and ready again. Meanwhile, in high service-BS, they were ready, back-maximum, front swing, hits, strong-whip’s end, cross swing, and ready again. The M-ST cues were focus, yes, I can, ready, readier, calm, inhaling a deep breathe, good, staying motivated, keep trying, stronger, harder, strong-high to the back, show, and do your best [2,5]. The ST cue was used serially. The sequence of using the I-ST cue was based on the parts of the movement being taught. Meanwhile, for the M-ST cue, one cue was given at one meeting. At the following meeting, one more cue was added, and so on until the 12th meeting, and vice versa, for the 13th to 24th meetings.

The use of MI strategy referred to the following stages of the process recommendations: (1) developing an applicative framework, (2) developing an MI script to be used based on certain methods according to the characteristics of the participants, (3) integrating the applicative framework into the overall structure of the training program, and (4) communicating the MI program to student-athletes according to the applicable concept framework to be used [47]. The applicable MI framework used was the Four Ws: where, when, what, why [23,49], who, and how. MI was given in practice situations (where), before and after exercise (when), 10 minutes for each MI training session, in positive MI, on the vividness and controllability dimensions, for both visual and kinesthetic MI types, and based on cognitive and motivational functions. The C-MI object was carried out part by part of the movement and the whole series of movements, while the M-MI object was a specific goal or goal related-activity, the situation when controlling tension, and situation when successfully performing a movement well [47]. The MI script was designed based on layering system method [50] according to the characteristics of the participant (who) given through a tape-recorder media and used keywords as a marker of the imagined object according to the ST (how) guide. In each MI training session, participants were in a relaxed state, in a supine or anatomically sitting position on the badminton court, and started with basic MI exercises. At the end of each meeting, each student-athlete filled out the ST and MI manipulation check sheets to determine the consistency of their use by each student-athlete during the training process.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed using two ways MANOVA, used to test the effect of two independent variables simultaneously and partially on the variation of the two dependent variables both multivariate and univariate. It is assumed that the two dependent variables had a strong theoretical basis for multivariate analysis. Differences between EG and CG were analysed using one way ANOVA.

Preliminary Analysis

Preliminary analysis was used to determine differences among groups in the demographic variables of age, weight, and height. This analysis was conducted to ensure that the significance of differences in the dependent variable was not caused by variations of the differences in the three demographic variables, but due to variations in treatments.

Table 2

Results of One-Way ANOVA Differences in Demographic Variables among Groups
Demographic Variable	df	F	Sig.
Age	(4,75)	1.57	.19
Height	(4,75)	1.79	.14
Weight	(4,75)	2.02	.10
Note: p < 0,05; p < 0,01*

Table 2 shows the results of one-way ANOVA in demographic variables. The finding showed that there was no significant difference in age (F(4.75) = 1.57, p = .19), as well as in the weight variable (F(4.75) = 2.02 = .10) and the height variable (F(4.75) = 1.79, p = .14).

Main Analysis

Statistic Descriptive

Table 3

The Result of Statistic Descriptive Measurement (Means and Standard Deviations)
Dependent Variable	ST	MI	N	Mean	SD	Dependent Variable	ST	MI	N	Mean	SD
BMS	I-ST	C-MI	16	38.45	7.73			C-MI	16	77.81	4.92
		M-MI	16	38.21	4.67		I-ST	M-MI	16	80.31	3.44
		Total	32	38.33	6.28			Total	32	79.06	4.36
	M-ST	C-MI	16	37.61	6.09	SC		C-MI	16	81.19	2.48
		M-MI	16	28.80	7.99		M-ST	M-MI	16	77.13	3.24
		Total	32	33.20	8.30			Total	32	79.16	3.51
	Total	C-MI	32	38.03	6.86			C-MI	32	79.50	4.20
		M-MI	32	33.50	8.02		Total	M-MI	32	78.72	3.67
		Total	64	35.77	7.75			Total	64	79.11	3.93
Note: N = Number of participants; SD = Standard deviation;

Table 3 shows the mean and standard deviation score of participants’ badminton motor skill and self-confidence after intervention.

Multivariate and Univariate Significance Test of Between-Subject Effects

Based on the results of the multivariate test using Pillai's Trace test, it was proven that ST had a significant effect on BMS and SC mastery (F (3.58) = 4.20, p = .01 < .05, Partial Eta Square (PES / ɳ2) = .18), also on MI (F (3.58) = 3.10, p = .03 < 0.05, PES (ɳ2) = .14), and on the interaction of ST and MI (F(3, 58) = 4.66, p = .01 < .05, PES (ɳ2) = .19) (see Fig. 2).

According to the results of the univariate test, it was found that (1) ST had a significant effect on BMS mastery (F = 9.21, p = .00 < .05, PES (ɳ2) = 0.13), but had no effect on SC (F = .01, p =. 92 > 0.05, PES (ɳ2) = .00), (2) MI had a significant effect on BMS mastery (F = 7.19, p = .01 < .05, PES (ɳ2) = .11), but had no effect on SC ( F = .74, p = .39 > .05, PES (ɳ2) = .01), and (3) the combination of ST and MI gave a significant interactive effect on BMS mastery (F = 6.44, p = .01, PES ( 2) = .10 ) and SC mastery (F = 13.08, p = .00, PES (ɳ2) = .18) (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).

Table 4

The results of the pairwise comparison analysis of independent variable categories
Pairwise Comparison			Mean Difference	Standard Deviation	Conclusion
I-ST	:	M-ST on BMS	5.12 (-5.12)	1.69	(p = .00 < .05)^**
I-ST	:	M-ST on SC	− .09 (.09)	.91	(p = .92 > .05)
C-MI	:	M-MI on BMS	4.53 (-4.53)	1.69	(p = .01 < .05)^**
C-MI	:	M-MI on SC	.78 (-.78)	.91	(p = .39 > .05)
Note: p < 0,05^; p < 0,01^*

Based on the result of pairwise comparison test (see Table 4), it is proven that (1) I-ST had a more significant effect than M-ST on BMS mastery (p = .00 < .05), but there was no difference of the effect on SC (p = .92 > .05), (2) C-MI had a more significant effect than M-MI on BMS mastery (p = .01 < .05), but there was no difference of the effect on SC (p = .39 > .05).

Table 5

Results of the comparison analysis of the pair interaction between ST and MI
Pair Interaction Comparison	Mean			Independent Variable	Conclusion
Comparison between I-ST and M-ST on C-MI (I-ST/C-MI : M-ST/C-MI)	38.45	:	37.61	BMS	I-ST/C-MI ≠ M-ST/C-MI (Not significant)
Comparison between I-ST and M-ST on M-MI (I-ST/M-MI : M-ST/M-MI)	38.21	:	28.80	BMS	I-ST/M-MI > M-ST/M-MI (Significant)
Comparison between I-ST and M-ST on C-MI (I-ST/C-MI : M-ST/C-MI)	77.81		81.81	SC	I-ST/C-MI < M-ST/C-MI (Significant)
Comparison between I-ST and M-ST on M-MI (I-ST/M-MI : M-ST/M-MI)	80.31	:	77.13	SC	I-ST/M-MI > M-ST/M-MI (Significant)
Comparison between C-MI and M-MI on I-ST (I-ST/C-MI : I-ST/M-MI)	38.45	:	38.21	BMS	I-ST/C-MI ≠ I-ST/M-MI (Not significant)
Comparison between C-MI and M-MI on M-ST (M-ST/C-MI : M-ST/M-MI)	37.61	:	28.80	BMS	M-ST/C-MI > M-ST/M-MI (Significant)
Comparison between C-MI and M-MI on I-ST (I-ST/C-MI : I-ST/M-MI)	77.81	:	80.31	SC	I-ST/C-MI < I-ST/M-MI (Significant)
Comparison between C-MI and M-MI on M-ST (M-ST/C-MI : M-ST/M-MI)	81.19	:	77.13	SC	M-ST/C-MI > M-ST/M-MI (Significant)

The results of the pair interaction test between ST and MI (see Table 5) show that (1) the effect of I-ST > M-ST on the BMS and SC mastery in the M-MI condition, but there was no difference of the interaction effect on the BMS mastery in the C-MI condition. On the other hand, the effect of M-ST > I-ST on SC in C-MI condition. (2) In the M-ST condition, the effect of C-MI > M-MI on the BMS and SC mastery, but there was no difference of the interaction effect on the BMS mastery in the I-ST condition. On the other hand, the effect of M-MI > C-MI on SC in I-ST condition.

The Comparison between EG and CG

The results of the one-way ANOVA analysis showed that there was a significant difference between EG and CG for both BMS (F(3,63) = 6.683, = .00 < .05) and SC (F(3,63) = 4.61, = .01 < .05). The results of further test analysis using the Tukey test showed that the BMS and SC mastery in all EG was higher and more significant than CG (ρ < 0.05).

Fidelity Check

ST Fidelity Check. Based on the results of the ST fidelity check, participant responses regarding the use of ST include: (1) 85.40% understood how to use ST; (2) ST was used during exercise by 66.20% respondents, sometimes by 38.60% respondents, no by 5.20% respondents; (3) the most frequently used ST were ready again (95.60% = clear lob-BS) and cross swing (98.43%= high service-BS); (4) in ST usage frequency, 70.40% of participants responded “often”, 29.60% of participants responded “sometimes”, and 10.00% of participants responded almost never, (5) 81.3% I-ST helped BMS mastery, (6) 77.6% M-ST helped increase morale, and 71.3% helped improve self-confidence, (7) reasons for not using ST included 6.30% had no reason, 62.35% were unsure of its benefits, and 31.35% did not know how to do it.

MI Fidelity Check. Participant responses based on the MI fidelity check results include: (1) 89.20% understood how to do MI; (2) 86.10% could clearly imagine the movement to be studied; (3) 78.40% could imagine the movement shown by the model correctly; (4) 79.20% could clearly imagine the movements they had learned; (5) 81.50% used MI to correctly imagine their own movements; (6) 86.30% felt the benefits of MI in mastering BMS; and (7) 70.70% felt the benefits of MI in increasing SC.

ST Main Effect (Hypotheses 1 and 1a)

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of psychological strategies ST (I-ST, M-ST) and MI (C-MI, M-MI) on BMS and SC mastery either partially (main effect) or in combination (interaction effect). In general, it was found that the ST and MI strategies had a significant effect on the BMS and SC mastery, except that they did not partially affect SC.

Evidently, the ST strategy had a significant effect on the BMS and SC mastery (hypothesis 1 is proven). This finding complements the empirical evidence that ST has a simultaneous divergent function in facilitating learning, sports performance, and psychological skill development [19,20,29], especially in beginner student-athletes when learning new motor skills [5,6]. The results of this study also describe the effectiveness of ST function in relation to simultaneous mastery of BMS and SC. There is a coherence among the ST cue used, while the function and the outcome of ST intervention is referred to as “meaningful self-talk”. Theoretically, the results of this study explain: first, ST is a cognitive strategy that serves to represent the planned movement program into the actual movement process [51]; second, ST, in the rule-governed behavior concept is an antecedent in a statement of a rule that functions to regulate behavior to achieve goals. In this concept constellation, the incorporation of ST into the process of mastering BMS is basically a manifestation of the rule-governed behavior concept [52]. Third, the process of incorporating the ST function in mastering BMS is a process of activating the antecedents of self-efficacy, namely past performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion [53]. The three antecedents function as social feedback providing information about correct movements, wrong movements, and ways to correct them, as well as direct and accumulative motivational implications on the psychological aspect development [54], including SC.

Partially, ST strategy had a significant effect on BMS mastery (hypothesis 1a is proven). In its function as a cognitive strategy, the incorporation of ST in BMS mastery served as a “specific trigger” which greatly helped beginner student-athletes to focus their attention on the key elements of movement [8,14]. In this constellation, training as the most powerful moderator variable affecting the effectiveness of ST [55] plays a crucial role, not only because it can strengthen the association between the ST cue used and the success of the movement to be performed, but also can increase the internal and external attention of the beginner student-athletes to the key elements of the movement. Thus, the ST strategy is effectively used in BMS mastery and SC development because ST can help student-athletes to regulate their learning behavior or training to achieve goals, by increasing internal and external attentional focus on key elements of movement, as well as social feedback as a source of information on learning progress and the mobiliser of student-athlete learning efforts.

The results of this study were strengthened by the results of the ST fidelity check. In general, the indicators measured showed a positive level of ST implementation, although there were still participants who had not used it consistently, mainly because they were still unsure of the benefits of ST. Furthermore, the findings on the simple effect interaction test show that the effect of I-ST on BMS and SC is more effective than M-ST when combined with M-MI. On the other hand, the effect of M-ST on SC is more significant than I-ST when combined with C- MI. Therefore, the use of I-ST in the process of mastering motor skills will be more effective when it is combined with M-MI, while M-ST is combined with C-MI.

MI Main Effect (Hypotheses 2 and 2a)

Based on the results of the multivariate test, it was found that the MI strategy had a significant effect on the BMS and SC mastery (Hypothesis 2 was proven). The results of this study are relevant to several conceptual studies and the results of previous research on movement learning and sport performance domains [26,27], especially in young child student-athletes [1,32,56,57], including the development of various psychological skills, such as improving SC [34], motivation [33], and self-efficacy [35], and reducing anxiety [34]. The results of this study reflect the coherence among content, function, and outcome as one of the crucial issues in MI intervention. Cumming & Williams [58] call it “meaningful imagery”, which describes the fit between what is imagined (what), the function (reason) that underlying it (why), and the output of the MI process. This coherence also illustrates the divergent function of MI as it facilitated the simultaneous development of BMS and SC, although it was found to be partially not significant in SC. From the social cognition perspective, the results of this study are related to the involvement of mirror neurons (MNs), a subpopulation of neurons that are active during the movement learning process, from observing movement, MI training, and actual movement execution [59]. These MNs (possibly) link these three processes to social behavior. In the process, similar nervous systems are communal and share functions with each other, so that a series of movement learning processes is connected with the functional role of MNs to understand actions, intentions, imitation, and empathy in a social cognition mechanism (60). Thus, according to these findings, the MI strategy has a simultaneous divergent function as MI is effectively used to improve BMS and facilitate SC development. This is partly because of the commonality of the nervous system that is similar and shared in the MNs system and a series of movement learning processes. Specifically, the involvement of MNs in MI training occurs when student-athletes perform image transformations by imagining what they will see when the object is manipulated to be more in line with the desired image.

MI strategy also partially affected BMS mastery (hypothesis 2a is proven). This finding can be explained partly by the presence of an equivalent nervous system communality during MI strategy training in actual movement training, with a lower magnitude [61]. This finding strengthens the brain activity hypothesis stating that mental training (MI) will be effective because it has a similar neuro-physiological activity between the imagined movement and the actual movement [55]. The four brain regions that are most consistently activated during MI training and actual training are the supplementary motor area, premotor cortex, parietal cortex, and cerebellum [62]. Functionally, the neuro-physiological communality of the two processes is complementary and mutually reinforcing, both are involved in the over-lapping brain system [63] to facilitate the representation of actual movements.

The results of this study were supported by the results of the MI fidelity check which generally showed that beginner student-athletes perform MI effectively according to what they were trained on. All fidelity check indicators showed above 75% achievement, except for the benefit indicator for SC development, which was only 70.70%. Furthermore, according to the simple effect interaction test results, C-MI had a higher effect than M-MI on BMS and SC mastery when combined with M-ST. On the contrary, M-MI had a higher effect than C-MI on SC when combined with I- ST. Therefore, the use of C-MI in the training process will be more effective when combined with M-ST, while M-MI is combined with I-ST.

Hypotheses 1b and 2b.

Different results were found. Partially, ST and MI did not have a significant effect on SC (hypotheses 1b and 2b were rejected). This finding is inconsistent with some of the previous study results ST: [14], MI: [34]. One of the causal descriptions related to the results of this study, among others, is that SC is a “fragile construct” [64] that is easy to change and its development is strongly influenced by the success and failure in achieving goals, thus it takes a relatively long time to form a robust self-confidence. In other words, ST and MI strategies can influence SC through indirect mechanisms, namely through the accumulation of successes and failures in achieving goals. SC level will be stable if there is accumulation of goal achievement where motivation becomes a steppingstone for SC development. From a methodological perspective, apart from the possibility that there was no initial measurement of SC condition considering that the indicators measured had to be directly related to the experience of participants participating in badminton training, it was also due to the weakness of controlling the influence of psychosocial aspects to allow the diffusion of information and novelty effects.

ST and MI Interaction Effect (Hypotheses 3, 3a, 3b)

The analysis results found that the combination of ST and MI strategies together had a significant interaction effect on the BMS and SC mastery (Hypothesis 3 was proven). The results of this study complement the evidence on the effectiveness of a combination of ST and MI strategies in learning motor skills and sport psychology in beginner student-athlete participants when learning new motor skills and are consistent with several previous studies [25,65]. The results of this study explain, among others: first, information in learning motor skills comes from verbal information channel systems (ST: ALI Model [41] dan non-verbal (movement observation and MI: Dual Coding Model, [40]). In the theoretical level, the two channels form a complementary process communality, where MI connects the motor system with the verbal system through the internal representation of the movement, while ST is used to generate image movements that will activate the internal representation of the movement. Longstaff [66] calls this “mechanistic connections”, when the two information channels are used, student-athletes essentially transform from verbal instructions into action, and vice versa. Second, there is a function communality at the applicative level based on ST and MI functions. Beginner student-athletes used ST and MI strategies for cognitive (instructional) and motivational functions whose outputs are functionally orthogonal use at the pedagogical level from the beginning to the end of the exercise. Thus, the combination of ST and MI strategies is effective in increasing the BMS and SC mastery together because they functionally form a communality at the theoretical and applicable levels, whose functions are complementary and reinforcing and have an implicative effect on the SC development at the pedagogical level.

For the partial effect on SC, the use of a combination of ST and MI in mastering BMS is a process to activate the three self-efficacy antecedents, namely past performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, and verbal persuasion [42]. The three antecedents function as cognitive strategies influencing the individual perception of self-efficacy and become a source to increase self-efficacy through its influence on thought patterns and feelings of competence and success. In fact, these three antecedents strengthen the association between mastery of BMS and SC. There is an additive-motivational effect of changes in BMS and an indication of a cyclical reciprocal relationship with SC through increasing the mechanism of the relationship between the two. Changes in one of the two variables are mutually determinant for changes in other variables, and vice versa.

Pairwise Comparison Test (Hypotheses 4a and 4b). Comparing the effectiveness of I-ST and M-ST, it was proven that I-ST had a higher effect on BMS (Hypothesis 4a was proven), including when it was compared to CG. This finding is consistent with previous studies on child participants [8,67], as well as providing partial support for the new matching hypothesis [20,68], stating that I-ST is more effective than M-ST in the early stages of new advanced motor skill mastery, while the M-ST will be more effective for learned motor task. This is partly because beginner student-athletes have a tendency to use movement as a medium for conducting internal dialogue. In that regard, I-ST has a more suitable content for internal dialogue. I-ST is helpful for beginner student-athletes, especially because it is related to their limited time and attention capacity to process important information [55]. Within these limitations, I-ST can help increase external and internal attention of beginner student-athletes to the relevant key elements of movement while restricting irrelevant stimuli. Therefore, attention is an inseparable constituent in the early stages of movement skill mastery (BMS).

The results of the pairwise comparisons test between C-MI and M-MI show that C-MI had a higher effect than M-MI on BMS mastery (Hypothesis 4b is proven). The results of this study are relevant to the findings of previous studies on beginner student-athlete participants [1,29,57,69]. This is because C-MI activates and strengthens the neural network involved in the motion execution, which is actually more equivalent and complementary than M-MI which only imagines socio-psychological situations that support BMS mastery. As reported in several studies, M-MI is more profitable and effective to be used in more emotionally demanding match situations [24]. C-MI plays a functional role as a coding system helping beginner student-athletes to master the symbolic aspects and movement patterns and create and develop a movement program by encoding the movement patterns to be carried out in the central nervous system allowing them to practice the symbolic elements of the movement task they will perform [55,70]. In other words, when using C-MI, student athletes perform motion simulation exercises in their minds. Therefore, MI is actually a prototype form of motion simulation [71], and therefore can facilitate BMS mastery.

According to all the results of this study, the most important practical implication is that sports coaches and/or physical education teachers can use ST and MI strategies to facilitate learning, sports performance, and psychological skills of beginner student-athletes, either partially or together. According to the results of this study, it is proven that the ST and MI strategies are effectively used by beginner students when learning new motor skills (BMS) by adapting the structure of the learning process completely. The integration process must be carried out carefully using certain process stages [2]. Finally, for the application, the use of ST should be combined with MI, I-ST with M-MI, and vice versa, while M-ST with C-MI and vice versa. The results of this study prove that the combination at the functional level (ST and MI) and sub-functional level (I-ST, M-ST, C-MI M-MI) is more effective in improving BMS and SC mastery.

The main limitations of this study include the diversity of ST and MI strategies at the functional level (I-ST, M-ST, C-MI, M-MI) and had not differentiated at the sub-functional level (IS-ST, IG-ST, MA- ST, MM-ST, MD-ST, CS-MI, CG-MI, MS-MI, MG-A-MI, MG-M-MI). For this reason, the research results were not specific; participants were limited to child student-athletes; observations were only based on the results of the post-test; and no retention test was carried out. Considering the three limitations of this study, it is necessary to conduct further research on the combination of ST and MI strategies by considering their elaboration to the sub-functional level and including the attention focus type, motor skill type, participant skill level, and the use of neuro-physiological techniques to determine structural and functional aspects of the brain activated when performing ST and MI so that a more accurate, specific, and in-depth information is obtained.

The findings of this study provide empirical evidence of the positive influence of the use of ST and MI, either partially or in combination, on the BMS and SC mastery. ST and MI strategies can be used to help student-athletes in motor learning, sport performance, and psychological aspects development process. The applicative concepts of ST and MI used in this study are generic and flexible. Therefore, their use at the pedagogical level is not limited to certain age groups and skill levels but can also be used in different age groups and skill levels with a specific content. These two psychological strategies can be incorporated into an integral part of the overall training program or become alternative strategies that can be used by coaches and/or physical education teachers to facilitate motor learning, sports performances, and develop psychological skills by completely adapting the structure of the learning process and integrating it into a model of the stages of the learning process of motor skills in the perspective of social cognition.

ST: self-talk; MI: mental imagery; BMS: badminton motor skills; SC: self-confidence; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; EG: experimental group; CG: control group; I-ST: instructional self-talk; M-ST: motivational self-talk; C-MI: cognitive mental imagery; M-MI: motivational mental imagery; PST: psychological skill training; IS-ST: instructional specific-self talk; IG-ST: instructional general-self talk; MA-ST: motivational arousal-self talk; MM-ST: motivational mastery-self talk; MD-ST: motivational drive-self talk; CS-MI: cognitive specific-mental imagery; CG-MI: cognitive general-mental imagery; MS-MI: motivational specific-mental imagery; MG-A-MI: motivational general-arousal; MG-M-MI: motivational general-mastery-mental imagery; N=number of participants; NG: Number of participants in a group N_Ma: number of male; N_Fe: number of female; LOBBS: learning outcome of badminton basic skill; OBT: outcome-based test PBT: process-based test; PPM: Person Product Moment; CFA: confirmatory factor analysis, FL: factor loading; SCS: Self Confidence Scale; CE-D: cognitive efficiency-dimensions; PST-D: physical skills and training- dimensions; R-D: resilience dimensions; PES: partial eta square

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This project has obtained ethics approval from Centre of Research and Community Service, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (Project No. B-1030/UN40.PL/PJ.00.00/2021), date of approval: 25 June 2021. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants parent or a legal guardian before the study commenced.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyses during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

Centre of Research and Community Services, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (1393/UN40.LP/PT.01.03/2022)

Authors’ contributions

YH and YY: conceived the research idea and wrote original draft. BH: formal analysis of application statistical to analyse or synthesise study data. KS, UDU and CS: wrote, reviewed, & edited the manuscript. YH, YY, BH: Funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Our sincere gratitude’s go to the coaches of the badminton club or school in Bandung, the Faculty of Sports and Health Education, and the Centre of Research and Community Service, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, who has funded this research.

Authors' information (optional)

Yusuf Hidayat: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3645-4437

Hidayat Y. The Effect of Goal Setting and Mental Imagery Intervention on Badminton Learning Achievement Motor Skill at 10-12 Years Old: The Context of Indonesia. Educ Int J Educ Stud [Internet]. 2011;3(2):2011. https://www.journals.mindamas.com/index.php/educare/article/view/233
Hidayat Y. Workshop of Self-talk Intervention for Beginners of Badminton Coaches. Asian J Sci Res. 2019;12(2):263–70. https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajsr.2019.263.270
Tzetzis G, Votsis E. Three Of Different Feedback Methods On Badminton Skills Acquisition and Retention. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;0(102):275–84. https://www.academia.edu/33436851/Three_Feedback_Methods_in_Acquisition_and_Retention_of_Badminton_Skills_1
Hardy J, Comoutos N, Hatzigeorgiadis A. Reflections on the maturing research literature of self-talk in sport: Contextualising the special issue. Sport Psychol. 2018;32(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2017-0141
Hidayat Y, Budiman D. The influence of self-talk on learning achievement and self confidence. Asian Soc Sci. 2014;10(5):186–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n5p186
Chang YK, Ho LA, Lu FJH, Ou CC, Song TF, Gill DL. Self-talk and softball performance: The role of self-talk nature, motor task characteristics, and self-efficacy in novice softball players. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2014;15(1):139–45. www.elsevier.com/ locate/ psychsport
Hardy J, Begley K, Blanchfield AW. It’s Good But it’s Not Right: Instructional Self-Talk and Skilled Performance. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2015;27(2):132–9. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2014.959624
Zetou E, Vernadakis N, Bebetsos E, Liadakis N. The effect of self-talk on Tae-kwon-do skills’ learning of novice athletes and perceived use of it. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2014;9(1):124–35. https://doi.org/10.4100/jhse.2014.91.13
Hardy J, Gammage K, Hall C. A descriptive study of athlete self-talk. Sport Psychol. 2001;15(3):306–18. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.15.3.306
Hardy J. Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2006;7(1):81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002
Kolovelonis A, Goudas M, Dermitzaki I. The effects of instructional and motivational self-talk on students’ motor task performance in physical education. Psychol Sport Exerc [Internet]. 2011;12(2):153–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.002
Weinberg R, Miller A, Horn T. The influence of a self-talk intervention on collegiate cross-country runners. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;10(2):123–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645135
de Matos LF, Bertollo M, Stefanello JMF, Pires FO, da Silva CK, Nakamura FY, et al. Motivational self-talk improves time-trial swimming endurance performance in amateur triathletes. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol [Internet]. 2021;19(3):446–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1717576
Zetou E, Nikolaos V, Evaggelos B. The effect of instructional self-talk on performance and learning the backstroke of young swimmers and on the perceived functions of it. J Phys Educ Sport. 2014;14(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2014.01005
Zourbanos N, Chroni S, Hatzigeorgiadis A, Theodorakis Y. The Effects of Motivational Self-Talk on Self-Efficacy and Performance in Novice Undergraduate Students. J Athl Enhanc. 2013;02(04). https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000117
Galanis E, Hatzigeorgiadis A, Zourbanos N, Theodorakis Y. Why Self-Talk Is Effective? Perspectives on Self-Talk Mechanisms in Sport [Internet]. Sport and Exercise Psychology Research: From Theory to Practice. Elsevier Inc.; 2016. 181–200 p. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803634-1/00008-X
Hatzigeorgiadis A, Zourbanos N, Mpoumpaki S, Theodorakis Y. Mechanisms underlying the self-talk-performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychol Sport Exerc [Internet]. 2009;10(1):186–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.009
Papaioannou A, Ballon F, Theodorakis Y, Auwelle Y Vanden. Combined effect of goal setting and self-talk in performance of a soccer-shooting task. Percept Mot Skills. 2004;98(1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.1.89-99
Tod D, Hardy J, Oliver E. Effects of self-talk: A systematic review. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011;33(5):666–87. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.5.666
Hatzigeorgiadis A, Zourbanos N, Galanis E, Theodorakis Y. Self-talk and sports performance: A meta-analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(4):348–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611413136
Weinberg R. Does Imagery Work? Effects on Performance and Mental Skills. J Imag Res Sport Phys Act. 2008;3(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0191.1025
Hall C., Chandler MK., Fishburne G., Hall N. Sport imagery questionnaire for children. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2009;13:93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670902812713
Munroe-Chandler KJ, Hall CR, Fishburne GJ, Strachan L. Where, when, and why young athletes use imagery: An examination of developmental differences. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007;78(2):103–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2007.10599408
Vaezmousavi M, Rostami R. The Effects of Cognitive and Motivational Imagery on Acquisition, Retention and Transfer of the Basketball Free Throw. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 2009; 2(2), 129-135. http://idosi.org/wjss/wjss2(2)09.htm
Cumming J, Nordin SM, Horton R, Reynolds S. Examining the direction of imagery and self-talk on dart-throwing performance and self efficacy. Sport Psychol. 2006;20(3):257–74. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.20.3.257
Simonsmeier BA, Androniea M, Buecker S, Frank C. The effects of imagery interventions in sports: a meta-analysis. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol [Internet]. 2020;0(0):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2020.1780627
Toth AJ, McNeill E, Hayes K, Moran AP, Campbell M. Does mental practice still enhance performance? A 24 Year follow-up and meta-analytic replication and extension. Psychol Sport Exerc [Internet]. 2020;48(February):101672. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101672
Peluso EA, Ross MJ, Gfeller JD, LaVoie DJ. A comparison of mental strategies during athletic skills performance. J Sport Sci Med. 2005;4(4):543–9. https://www.jssm.org/04-4%>Contents
Afrouzeh M, Sohrabi M, Taheri HR, Afroozeh A. Optimal Timing of Mental Practice on Learning the Volleyball Service Skill. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2013;1(3):29–38. http://aassjournal.com/article-1-53-fa.html
Rostami R, Rezaie M. A comparison of different functions of sport imagery based on the experience level and the player’s position among female basketball players of league one in iran universities. Middle East J Sci Res. 2013;14(9):1235–41. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.9.2322
Simonsmeier BA, Frank C, Gubelmann H, Schneider M. The effects of motor imagery training on performance and Mental Representation of 7- to 15-year-old gymnasts of different levels of expertise. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2018;7(2):155–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000117
Kerkez F, Kulak a, Aktaş Y. Effects of Specific Imagery and Autogenic Relaxation Combined Intervention on Soccer Skill Performance of Young Athletes in Turkey. Scottish J Arts, Soc Sci Sci Stud. 2012;3(1):53-67. https://www.scottishjournal.co.uk/
Nordin SM, Cumming J. Types and Functions of Athletes’ Imagery: Testing Predictions From the Applied Model. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;6(2):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671861
Adeyeye M, Esward H, Kehindi A. Effects of Mental-Skills Training On the Performance of TableTennis Players of National Institute for Sport, Lagos. IOSR J Res Method Educ. 2013;3(2):22–7. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0322227
Jenny, Munroe-Chandler KJ, Hall CR, Hall ND. Using Motivational General-Mastery Imagery to Improve the Self-efficacy of Youth Squash Players. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2014;26(1):66–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2013.778914
Dana A, Shirazi RR, Jalili F, Zamanian F. The effect of instruction and motivational self talk on performance and retention of discrete and continuous motor tasks. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2011;5(8):312–5. http://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas_August_2011.html
Munroe‐Chandler KJ, Hall CR, Fishburne G, O J, Hall N. The content of imagery use in youth sport. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2007;5(2):158–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197x.2007.9671817
Afsanepurak SA, Bahram A. The Effect of Self-talk and Mental Imagery on Motor Performance in Adolescents. Inter. Research J. of Appli & Basic Sci. 2012;3(3):601–7. https://silo.tips/download/the-effect-of-self-talk-and-mental-imagery-on-motor-performance-in-adolescents
Afsanepurak, Bahram, Dana. The Effect of Self-talk and Mental Imagery on Self-efficacy in Throwing Darts in Adolescents. Inter. Research J. of Appli & Basic Sci. 2012;3(3):594–600. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3947464
Clark JM, Paivio A. Dual Coding Theory and Education. Educ Psychol Rev. 1991;3(3):149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076
Annett J. On knowing how to do things: a theory of motor imagery. Cogn Brain Res [Internet]. 1996;3(2):65–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00030-5
Bandura A. Self-Efficacy The Exercise of Control. 1997. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A. Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. J Educ Psychol. 1997;89(1):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.29
Kolovelonis A, Goudas M, Dermitzaki I. The effects of self-talk and goal setting on self-regulation of learning a new motor skill in physical education. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012;10(3):221–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.671592
Weinberg R, Gould D. Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychcology. New Yorh: Human Kinetics; 2019. 877 p.
Callow N, Waters A. The effect of kinesthetic imagery on the sport confidence of flat-race horse jockeys. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2005;6(4):443–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.08.001
Hidayat Y, Komarudin, Martini T. Mental imagery applicative model for beginner badminton coaches. Int J Hum Mov Sport Sci. 2021;9(4):59–65. https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.091310
Hatzigeorgiadis A, Galanis E, Zourbanos N, Theodorakis Y. Self-talk and Competitive Sport Performance. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2014;26(1):82–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, Weinberg. The Four Ws of Imagery Use Where, When, Why, and What. Sport Psychol [Internet]. 2000;14:119–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.14.2.119
Nordin SM, Cumming J. Professional dancers describe their imagery: Where, when, what, why, and how. Sport Psychol. 2005;19(4):395–416. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.19.4.395
Schack T, Hackfort D. Handbook of Sport Psychology : Action-Theory Approach to Applied Sport Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2007. 332 p.
Ming S, Martin GL. Single-subject evaluation of a self-talk package for improving figure skating performance. Sport Psychol. 1996;10(3):227–38. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.10.3.227
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75361-4
Schmidt R, Lee T, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik H. Motor Control and Learning (6^th edition). Champaign, IL Human Kinetics; 2019. 730 p.
Magil R, Anderson D. Motor Learning and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2014. 498 p.
Caliari P. Enhancing forehand acquisition in table tennis: The role of mental practice. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2008;20(1):88–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200701790533
Veraksa AN, Gorovaya AE. Effect of Imagination on Sport Achievements of Novice Soccer Players. Psychol Rysua [Internet]. 2011;4:495–504. https://doi.org/DOI:10.11621/pir.2011.0032
Cumming J, Williams SE. Proposition d’une version révisée du modèle appliqué d’utilisation de l’imagerie. Illustrations dans les domaines du sport, de l’exercice de la danse et de la rééducation. Mov Sport Sci - Sci Mot. 2013;82(May 2014):69–81. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2013098
Buccino G, Riggio L. The role of the mirror neuron system in motor learning. Kinesiology. 2006;38(1):5–15. https://hrcak.srce.hr/4087
Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230
Allami N, Paulignan Y, Brovelli A, Boussaoud D. Visuo-motor learning with combination of different rates of motor imagery and physical practice. Exp Brain Res. 2008;184(1):105–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1086-x
Mizuguchi N, Nakata H, Uchida Y, Kanosue K. Motor imagery and sport performance. J Phys Fit Sport Med. 2012;1(1):103–11. https://doi.org/10.7600/jpfsm.1.103
Jeannerod M. Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsychologia, 33(11),1419–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)00073-C
Beaumont C, Maynard IW, Butt J. Effective Ways to Develop and Maintain Robust Sport-Confidence: Strategies Advocated by Sport Psychology Consultants. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2015;27(3):301–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.996302
Ahmed GW. Mental Imagery and Self-Talk as Approach to Cope with Pressure among Individual Sports. World. 2010;3:104–8. https://idosi.org/wjss/wjss3(S)10.htm
Longstaff FJ. Factors affecting the optimal use of imagery and self-talk in golfers. Desertasion, Res undertaken Sch Life Sci Northumbria Univ [Internet]. 2011. https://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/10454/1/longstaff.frances_phd.pdf
Zourbanos N, Hatzigeorgiadis A, Bardas D, Theodorakis Y. The effects of a self-talk intervention on elementary students’ motor task performance. Early Child Dev Care. 2013;183(7):924–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.693487
Zourbanos N, Hatzigeorgiadis A, Bardas D, Theodorakis Y. The effects of self-talk on dominant and nondominant arm performance on a handball task in primary physical education students. Sport Psychol. 2013;27(2):171–6. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.27.2.171
Hall CR, Munroe-Chandler KJ, Fishburne GJ, Hall ND. The sport imagery questionnaire for children (SIQ-C). Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2009;13(2):93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10913670902812713
Vealey R, Forlenza T. Applied Sport Psychology: Understanding and Using Imagery in Sport. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015. 240 p.
Vogt S, Rienzo F Di, Collet C, Collins A, Guillot A. Multiple roles of motor imagery during action observation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7(NOV):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00807

No competing interests reported.

The effect of the Interactive Self-talk and Mental Imagery program on Badminton Motor Skills and Self-Confident of Youth Beginner Student- Athletes

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Method

Design

Participant

Measures

Fidelity Check

Intervention and Procedure

Statistical Analysis

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Main Analysis

Multivariate and Univariate Significance Test of Between-Subject Effects

The Comparison between EG and CG

Fidelity Check

Discussion

ST Main Effect (Hypotheses 1 and 1a)

ST and MI Interaction Effect (Hypotheses 3, 3a, 3b)

Conslusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1