Tables 2 and
3 compare the pre- and post-measurement results for indicators of motor coordination of body parts.
| Variables | Measurement Unit | Pre-measurement | Post-measurement | Range | Average Deviation | t-test | Sig |
|---|
| Roundoff | | | | | | | |
| A | 5 scores | 2.521 ± 0.724 | 3.102 ± 0.711 | 0.281 | 0.722 | 2.178 | 0.010 |
| B | 5 scores | 1.322 ± 0.246 | 2.721 ± 0.354 | 0.299 | 0.689 | 2.430 | 0.000 |
| C | 5 scores | 1.348 ± 0.391 | 3.217 ± 0.787 | 0.269 | 0.524 | 2.861 | 0.000 |
| Back handspring | | | | | | | |
| D | 5 scores | 0.601 ± 0.112 | 2.872 ± 0.234 | 0.171 | 0.429 | 2.220 | 0.000 |
| E | 5 scores | 0.527 ± 0.881 | 3.201 ± 0.721 | 0.301 | 0.611 | 2.761 | 0.007 |
| F | 5 scores | 1.527 ± 0.335 | 3.921 ± 0.924 | 0.394 | 0.739 | 2.984 | 0.000 |
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
| Variables | Measurement unit | Pre- measurement | Post-measurement | Range | Average Deviation | t-test | Sig |
|---|
| Roundoff | | | | | | | |
| A | 5 scores | 2.901 ± 0.328 | 4.628 ± 0.734 | 0.228 | 0.523 | 2.451 | 0.000 |
| B | 5 scores | 1.315 ± 0.647 | 4.151 ± 0.477 | 0.236 | 0.557 | 2.383 | 0.000 |
| C | 5 scores | 1.440 ± 0.347 | 4.381 ± 0.624 | 0.191 | 0.486 | 2.195 | 0.004 |
| Back handspring | | | | | | | |
| D | 5 scores | 0.451 ± 0.834 | 4.208 ± 0.912 | 0.108 | 0.214 | 2.842 | 0.000 |
| E | 5 scores | 0.507 ± 0.398 | 3.807 ± 0.124 | 0.200 | 0.517 | 2.173 | 0.027 |
| F | 5 scores | 1.347 ± 0.664 | 4.981 ± 0.358 | 0.184 | 0.432 | 2.389 | 0.000 |
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
b Statistically significant under the error level ≤ (0.05) at the degree of freedom (30 - 1 = 29).
Our study showed that the arithmetic mean for the evaluation of motor coordination by gymnastics experts in the pre-test for both the control and experimental groups gradually decreased, reaching a very low score in the fourth and fifth stages of performance. The experts gave the control group scores of (D: 0.601, E: 0.507) for these stages, while the experimental group received scores of (D: 0.451, E: 0.507). This confirms the validity of the research participants' claims that they found it difficult to comprehend the sequence of motor performance during these stages, especially in connecting the roundoff skill with the back handspring. It also highlights the participants' difficulty in visualizing the correct performance, leading to feelings of confusion, fear, and hesitation in executing the skills.
According to
Tables 2, and
3, and as shown in
Figure 3, the statistical analysis results for the mean, standard deviation, T-values, and P-values when comparing the pre- and post-test results for both the control and experimental groups are as follows.
Comparison between the control and experimental groups results in the post measure.
For the control group, which used verbal, manual, and sometimes visual feedback through the educational booklet, the post-test showed improvement in the performance stages of the roundoff and handspring movements as follows: (A: 3.102, SD = 0.711, P = 0.010), (B: 2.721, SD = 0.354, P = 0.000), (C: 3.217, SD = 0.787, P = 0.000), (D: 2.872, SD = 0.234, P = 0.000), (E: 3.201, SD = 0.721, P = 0.007), (F: 3.921, SD = 0.924, P = 0.000).
For the experimental group, which underwent seven mental training sessions, we observed improvement in the post-test for the performance stages of the roundoff and handspring movements as follows: (A: 4.628, SD = 0.734, P = 0.000), (B: 4.151, SD = 0.477, P = 0.000), (C: 4.381, SD = 0.624, P = 0.004), (D: 4.208, SD = 0.919, P = 0.000), (E: 3.807, SD = 0.124, P = 0.027), (F: 4.981, SD = 0.358, P = 0.000).
According to
Table 4, which presents the statistical analysis results for the mean, standard deviation, T-values, P-values, and effect size to compare the post-test results between the control and experimental groups, we found improvements in all stages of the roundoff and handspring performance, favoring the experimental group that participated in the seven mental training sessions.
| Variables | Measurement Unit | Control Group | Experimental Group | t-test | Sig | Effect Size |
|---|
| Roundoff | | | | | | |
| A | 5 scores | 3.102 ± 0.711 | 4.628 ± 0.734 | 11.560 | 0.000 | 0.143 |
| B | 5 scores | 2.721 ± 0.354 | 4.151 ± 0.477 | 18.157 | 0.001 | 0.149 |
| C | 5 scores | 3.217 ± 0.787 | 4.381 ± 0.624 | 8.905 | 0.000 | 0.107 |
| Back handspring | | | | | | |
| D | 5 scores | 2.872 ± 0.234 | 4.208 ± 0.912 | 10.950 | 0.000 | 0.121 |
| E | 5 scores | 3.201 ± 0.721 | 3.807 ± 0.124 | 6.365 | 0.000 | 0.102 |
| F | 5 scores | 3.921 ± 0.924 | 4.981 ± 0.358 | 4.701 | 0.000 | 0.137 |
a Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
b Statistically significant under the error level ≤ (0.05) at the degree of freedom.
- In performance stage (A), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (3.102, SD = 0.711) compared to the experimental group (4.628, SD = 0.734). The comparison showed a statistically significant T-value with a high effect size of (0.143), favoring the experimental group with the higher mean.
- In performance stage (B), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (2.721, SD = 0.354) compared to the experimental group (4.151, SD = 0.477). The T-value was statistically significant with a high effect size of (0.149), again in favor of the experimental group.
- In performance stage (C), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (3.217, SD = 0.787) compared to the experimental group (4.381, SD = 0.624). The comparison revealed a statistically significant T-value with a high effect size of (0.107) in favor of the experimental group.
- In performance stage (D), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (2.217, SD = 0.234) compared to the experimental group (4.208, SD = 0.912). The T-value was statistically significant with a high effect size of (0.121), favoring the experimental group.
- In performance stage (E), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (3.201, SD = 0.721) compared to the experimental group (3.807, SD = 0.124). The T-value was statistically significant with a high effect size of (0.102), in favor of the experimental group.
- Finally, in performance stage (F), the mean and standard deviation for the control group were (3.921, SD = 0.924) compared to the experimental group (4.981, SD = 0.358). The T-value was statistically significant with a high effect size of (0.137), favoring the experimental group with the higher mean.
Figure 4 for the comparison results.