Where we were…where we are heading: One multiplicative journey

A journey into multiplicative thinking by three teachers in a primary school is reported. A description of how the teachers learned to identify gaps in student knowledge is described along with how the teachers assisted students to connect multiplicative ideas in ways that make sense

Investigating children\u27s multiplicative thinking: implications for teaching

Multiplicative thinking is a \u27big idea\u27 of mathematics that underpins much of the mathematics learned beyond the early primary school years. This article reports on a recent study that utilised an interview tool and a written quiz to gather data about children\u27s multiplicative thinking. Our research has so far revealed that many primary aged children have a procedural view of multiplicative thinking which we believe inhibits their progress. There are two aspects to this article. First, we present some aspects of the interview tool and written quiz, along with some of findings, and we consider the implications of those findings. Second, we present a key teaching idea and an associated task that has been developed from our research. The main purpose of the article is to promote the development of conceptual understanding of the multiplicative situation as opposed to the teaching of procedures. In doing so, we encourage the explicit teaching of the many connections within the multiplicative situation and between it and other \u27big ideas\u27 such as proportional reasoning and algebraic thinking

Is the intention to use sport supplements a predictor of placebo and nocebo responding among athletes?

Background: Placebo and nocebo effects have been observed in relation to many interventions in sport. Given variance in response, a key question is whether individual difference variables identify likely ‘responders.’ Hypothetically, such a variable might be the person’s intention to use the intervention. We aimed to explore relationships between athletes' intention to use sport supplements and their responses to a placebo/nocebo intervention. Methods: Participants completed a single-item measure of intention to use sport supplements (‘intending’, ‘undecided’ or ‘not intending’) prior to 5×20-m sprints. Participants were then randomised to Placebo (n=219), Nocebo (n=168) and Control (n = 134) conditions. Participants in Placebo and Nocebo conditions were administered a capsule deceptively presented as a sport supplement that would have a positive (Placebo) or negative (Nocebo) effect on performance. Controls were provided with no instructions and received no capsule. After 20 minutes, all participants completed another set of 5×20-m sprints. Results: Among ‘intending to use’ participants, the Placebo treatment was associated with faster times than the Nocebo treatment (P=0.023, Cohen’s d [d]=0.34). In the Placebo treatment, ‘intending to use’ participants were significantly faster than ‘not intending to use’ participants (P=0.004, d=0.49), as were ‘intending to use’ participants in relation to ‘undecided’ participants in the Nocebo treatment (P=0.044, d=0.44). No significant differences in performance by intention were observed in the Control condition. Conclusions: Placebo and nocebo responses appear to be mediated by the participant’s intention to use supplements. These findings have value in explaining placebo/nocebo responses, and should be tested in clinical medical settings

Is there a role for implicit and explicit information about placebo and nocebo effects in reducing the use of drugs in sport?

Background: The gateway hypothesis posits that the use of sport supplements by athletes can lead to the use of banned and possibly harmful performance-enhancing drugs. Previous data suggest that athletes implicitly exposed to a placebo intervention and/or explicitly informed about the role of placebo effects in sport may be less likely to use sports supplements, and therefore - in line with the gateway hypothesis - less likely to progress to drugs. Methods: Participants (n=629) completed the Sports Supplements Beliefs Scale (SSBS), Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) and a Likert-type scale measuring intention to use sports supplements. They were then randomised to Placebo (n=263), Nocebo (n=209) and Control (n=157). All participants completed a performance trial (see Hurst et al., this conference). Placebo and Nocebo participants subsequently received the results of the trial as well as a brief educational session describing the role of placebo/nocebo effects in sports performance. Controls received no information. All participants re-completed the questionnaires. Results: Analyses indicated that following the intervention, beliefs (P=0.009, Cohens d [d]=0.43), attitudes (P=0.047, d=0.29) and intentions (P=0.020, d=0.33) relating to the use of drugs and sport supplements were significantly lower in the Placebo and Nocebo group compared to Controls. Conclusions: Implicit exposure to a placebo/nocebo intervention and explicit exposure to a brief educational intervention about placebo effects influenced athlete’s beliefs, attitudes and intentions about drugs and sport supplements. Given the gateway hypothesis, experience of, or education about the placebo and nocebo effect may prevent athletes transitioning towards doping

Development and validation of the Sports Supplements Beliefs Scale

It has been proposed that the use of sports supplements by athletes might lead to the use of banned substances. This has been termed the gateway hypothesis. Given this hypothesis, if we accept that athletes use non-banned sports supplements because they believe that they will be effective, a measure of athletes’ beliefs about supplements might allow practitioners to identify athletes at risk of doping. We report the five-stage development of the Sports Supplements Beliefs Scale (SSBS). In study 1 we evaluated athletes’ beliefs about sports supplements by conducting semi-structured interviews on 16 athletes. Inductive and deductive analyses resulted in a pool of 26 items. In study 2 we recruited a panel of experts and athletes to evaluate the content validity of the 26 items. 15 items were eliminated at this stage. In study 3 we subjected the responses of 171 athletes to exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure of the scale. A two-factor model emerged, with one strong six-item factor, a less coherent four-item factor, and one item that cross loaded. In study 4, responses of a sample of 412 team sports athletes were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Of three competing models tested, a six-item single-factor model demonstrated best model fit (χ2/df = 2.894, RMSEA = 0.068; 90% CI = 0.038 to 0.099, P = 0.146, SRMR = 0.0246, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.978, AIC = 50.045, EVCI = 0.122). Factor loadings ranged from 0.4 and 0.9. All t-values were statistically significant (P <0.001) and ranged from 10.3 to 13.3. In study 5 we examined relationships between scores on the six-item scale and supplement use. Linear regression indicated that higher scores were significantly associated with the use of a greater number of supplements (β = 0.534, P <0.001, r2 = 0.285) and higher frequency of supplement use (β = -0.517, P <0.001, r2 = 0.267). Scores of users and non-users of supplements differed significantly (mean differences = 6.37 ± 0.56, U = 8,357, P <0.001), with discriminant function analysis indicating that scores correctly predicted 76% of sport supplement users and 66% of non-users (Wilks Lambda = 0.760 χ2 = 110.988, P <0.001). Whilst future research will be required to demonstrate its predictive validity, the SSBS has utility in the assessment of athletes’ beliefs about sports supplements. In the context of the gateway hypothesis, SSBS scores might play a meaningful role in identifying at risk athletes and in evaluating interventions

An educational placebo effect intervention reduces the likelihood of athletes using performance enhancing drugs

Background Recent research has reported that placebo effects can significantly improve sport performance. However, while research has generated knowledge about placebo effects on sport performance, there is limited research devoted to how this can support applied practice. In light of this, it has been suggested that placebo effect research could be harnessed and used as a tool to prevent drug use in sport. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an educational placebo effect intervention on an athlete’s decision to use performance enhancing drugs. Method Elite athletes (N=169; 56% male, age=18.2±0.4yrs) attended a one-hour educational placebo effect intervention. The session was delivered by a facilitator using Power-point in a university classroom. The session introduced participants to placebo effects, the role expectations and prior experiences can have on the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs and placebo effect research on sport performance. Throughout the session, participants were encouraged to critically examine the need to use performance enhancing drugs and to consider the role of placebo effects. Participants completed measures of performance enhancing drug use pre and one-week post intervention. Results Data indicated that participants were less likely to use performance enhancing drugs following the intervention (p<.001, d=0.42). Conclusion The results of this study provide novel evidence to suggest that an educational placebo effect intervention may be an effective in preventing drug use in sport. Future research should aim to harness knowledge of placebo effects to prevent other drug use behaviours