# Title for the Stars

1151 Words5 Pages
Figure 1 above shows the mean level a differences in performance mean scores within the five treatment groups. The combined group clearly had the largest group mean difference, while positive and negative obtaining similar mean results. The smallest mean performance was obtained by no control (wait) treatment of the five conditions.
The descriptives data showed there was variation between the five treatment levels. The standard deviations for each groups were: the positive feedback group had a (SD= 6.237), the negative feedback group has a (SD= 5.792), combined feedback had a (SD= 4.36), no treatment group had a (SD= 5.26), and the placebo group had a (SD= 5.29). The minimum score was 65 obtained within the no treatment (wait) group and the maximum = 96 obtained score was in the combined treatment group.
The one-way ANOVA was used to examine the differences in performance in the gymnastic floor event among the five different levels. The performance varied significantly across the treatment groups, F (4, 84) = 10.822, p = .001, η2= 0.34.
Tukeys Post Hoc is a multiple comparisons procedure used in conjunction with ANOVA. The six statistically significant results differed between a p < .05 and a p <. 001 levels, as those conditions obtained comparatively higher scores. There was two comparisons at the p=.001. The treatment condition Combined and No Treatment (wait) p=.001 (MD=11.618) and Combined and Placebo p=.001 (MD=8.434). Four different comparisons indicated were significant at the p<.05. The treatment comparison between Positive and Combined p=.009 (MD= -5.884), Positive and No treatment (wait) p=.022 (MD= 5.733), Negative and Combined p=.014 (MD= -6.084) and Negative and No treatment (wait) p=.014 (MD = 5.533).
The Leve...

... middle of paper ...

...orers that may produce changes in scoring. The experiment excluded strict marking criteria, hence unable to ensure that all scoring was equal. The coach, inadvertently becoming more or less lenient, conscientious, or changing marking expectations.
These results of this experiment can be generalised to many different fields, including those outside of sport. For example, teachers could implement this into feedback on assignments and in class activities to improve performance outcomes of students. Results clearly displayed that providing combined feedback and attention generates better performance and improvement. Further research could examine what type of feedback creates the best outcomes and at what point does feedback not provide any benefits. Additionally, a further study could examine the different sex roles and situations stimulus that influences feedback.