The aim of this work is to analyze the differences between players of a group following a token economy program and another who does not follow it. The results indicate that young players perceive that their trainers have a preference for attacking actions during the match; this unanimity in preferences disappears during training. Significant differences were found significant differences in the preferences of coach during training; which means that belonging to one group of study implies different choices. There have been found significant differences between groups in specific skills related to defense and ball reception

Ezquerro García-Noblejas, Milagro

Montero Seoane, Antonio

Saavedra García, Miguel

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB

Dr. Antonio Montero. Facultade de Ciencias do Deporte. Universidade da Coruña. Avda. Ernesto Che Guevara, 121-Pazos-Liáns. 15179- Oleiros - A Coruña.Email: amontero@udc.esUniversitat de les Illes BalearsUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaRevista de Psicología del Deporte2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 433-437ISSN: 1132-239XAPPLICATION OF A TOKENECONOMY PROGRAM ANDPREFERENCES FOR BASKETBALLPLAYERSAntonio Montero, Milagros Ezquerro & Miguel SaavedraKEY WORDS: Token economy program, basketball.ABSTRACT: The aim of this work is to analyze the differences between players of a group following a token economy programand another who does not follow it. The results indicate that young players perceive that their trainers have a preference forattacking actions during the match; this unanimity in preferences disappears during training. Significant differences were foundsignificant differences in the preferences of coach during training; which means that belonging to one group of study impliesdifferent choices. There have been found significant differences between groups in specific skills related to defense and ballreception. IntroductionCoach’s behaviour plays an importantrole in sports context and inf luencesperformance, learning, enjoyment, groupprocesses and psychological developmentof sportsmen (Cumming, Smith & Smoll,2006). In Spain, the number of participantsin out-of-school sport activities is about 4million, with approximately 100,000 adultsand teenagers supervising them. (Smoll &Smith, 2009). The application of a tokeneconomy in a basketbal l  c lub al lows,among other aspects, the constitution of agroup of practice which betters differenttypes of learning (Lorenzo & Jiménez,2007).MethodThe aim of this work is exploratory.After obtaining a sample of subjects(N=192, with an age range from 7 to 14year olds, µ=12.12 years and S.D.= 1.84),all of them belonging to different teams.Categories were under 12 and under 14.We try to know the differences betweenthe individuals who were using a tokeneconomy program (studied group) andthose who were not following any program(control group).Part ic ipants completed thequestionnaire for young basketball playersby (Ortega, Jiménez, Palao & Saínz, 2008),during May and June, 2009. Consent formswere signed by parents or tutors;  andconfidentiality was guaranteed.The token economy programs havediverse phases that Labrador (2008) details:1. To delimit and define the conducts to bemodified; 2. To establish the contingenciesin the cards; 3. To select and to indicatesupport indicators; 4. To determine whereand when to deliver the of cards; 5. Toestablish exchange value of the cards forreinforcements; 6. Where and when toexchange reinforcement cards; 7. Who isgoing to deliver and change cards forreinforcement; 8. Record of conduct, cardsand reinforcements obtained by everyperson; 9.  Group and individualcontingencies. The applied program had two aims:one,  the modif icat ion of conducts asreferred to the attitude of players duringtrainings and in the games,  to theirpunctuality and to the development ofhygienic and healthy habits, related to thesport; and two, to educate and to facilitatedecisions for the coaches, on the basis ofthe club’s sport philosophy. The usedreinforcements were club’s sport materialsand the possibility of taking photos withthe senior players.The comparison between the studiedand control group has been established inrelation to the coaches preferences forattacking or defence and the players ofboth groups, also to the specific individualskil ls of the above mentioned groups,depending on the categories of the players.Results  Table 1 shows the percentage of thestudied and control group according toplayer’s preference or to what they perceivefrom their coaches regarding the differentgame skills.Our results highlight two aspects: one,all players perceived their coaches had apreference for attack during games;unanimity that disappears during trainings;and two, coach preferences depending onwhich study group they belong to. On the other hand, player’s preferredMontero, A.,  Ezquerro, M. & Saavedra, M. Economía de fichas y baloncestoRevista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 433-437434game skills are shown in table 2, shouldanyone reach significance (p: 0, 05), furtheranalysis assessing differences between ageswere performed (<12 years and <14 years)In the first part, training and attackingdifferences are shown with regard to theircoaches and, in the second one, thoserelated to the defence.Montero, A.,  Ezquerro, M. & Saavedra, M.. Economía de fichas y baloncestoRevista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 433-437 435Table 2. Effect of treatment (U-Mann Whithney) pooled and split by categories.Table 1. Description and association of coaches´ and players’ preferences depending on treatmentCoach Game Player Game Coach Practice Player PracticeTreated Control Treated Control Treated Control Treated ControlOffense (%) 100 100 81 87,8 27,8 48,3 74 79,3Defence (%) 0 0 17 9,5 49,5 39,3 23 18,4Everything  (offenseand defence) %0 0 2 2,7 14,4 6,7 2 2,3Others (%) 0 0 0 0 8,2 5,6 1 0Value Sig. Value Sig. Value Sig. Value Sig.C. of Contingencies * * = = 0,21 0,026 = =V of Cramer * * = = 0,223 0,026 = =* Tables of contingency cannot be realized. ** The variables are related.VariableGlobal <12 <14Average rangeSig. Asintotic bilateral (< 0,05)Players´ preference for defence ,055** * *Treated: 97.24Control: 95,89Coaches preference to practice 0,036 * ,081**Treated: 104,98Control: 89,47Coaches preference to offense 0,001 * 0,002Treated: 89,37Control: 102,41Assistance ,063** * *Treated: 99,31Control: 90,53To provoke offensive fouls 0,039 0,034 ,081**Treated: 98,13Control: 90,49Good defence of dribbling 0,027 0,004 *Treated: 104,46Control: 86,28Give fouls on defence 0,022 * *Treated: 101,84Control: 89,29Good defence of shooting 0,011 0,017 *Treated: 101,60Control: 89,49To receive a pass 0,002 * *Treated: 91,26Control: 98,05* They have not found significant differences between the treated group and the control.**Difficult decision since the p-value is among 5 and 10 %.436 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 433-437Montero, A.,  Ezquerro, M. & Saavedra, M. Economía de fichas y baloncestoDiscussion The lack of studies including theapplication of conduct modification programsin "ecological" environments represents adifficulty for the discussion of the results. Inspite of this, we can appreciate differences inthe coaches’ taste for training and for attack.These differences can be explained, at least inpart, in the application of conduct modificationprograms which involve the coaches of thestudied group. These coaches insisted on thedefensive work as a way of “construction of theteam" made easier by proximity, common aims,instructions to be present at other club grouptraining sessions, categories meetings and otherlearning activities done during the season(Lorenzo & Jiménez, 2007). Nevertheless, these differences were onlyregistered in practices sessions, since during thegames, all the players answered that theircoaches’ preference is attack.The preferred skills in training and gameare linked to attack, both for players andcoaches. The information to this respect has astructure similar to Palao, Ortega & Olmedilla’swork (2004); though, on the other hand, thecoaches prefer defence during training sessions.Intergroup analysis on specific skills showsdifferences between players. The skills relatedto ball recovery, and offensive fouling, but onthe other hand coaches are distinguished bytheir preference to attack and training sessions.In brief, players show differences in theirpreferences and in those that they perceivefrom their coaches depending on severalvariables: game versus practice; players versuscoaches; studied group versus control group;under 12 versus under 14 year olds; thereforeit seems to be necessary to study each of themin order to confirm the hypothesis about theabove mentioned preferences. The pointed differences partially confirmstatements by Jones, Potrac, Brewer, Armour& Hoff (2000) about the need that thecoaches/coaches express "expert power" towin and to preserve the respect and, probably,the admiration of their players. One of thefactors to consider in these studies is thedegree of compatibility between players andcoaches, which might serve as indicator toanticipate the possibility of reaching theeducational and sports aims of clubs andsports associations (Kenow and Williams,1999).The application of a token economyprogram modifies the preferences of theplayers to certain specific skills either duringthe basketball games and training sessions inunder 12 and under 14 year olds. In this work we have found significantdifferences between player’s preferences fordefence, the receipt of a pass from theirteammates and in their own perception aboutwhat their coaches’ preferences for trainingand attack are.Competition increases the preference forattack in both groups: players and coaches.New studies seem to be necessary todetermine in what way certain aspects of theapplied program have effect on the players andcoaches preferences. ReferencesCumming, S., Smith, R., & Smoll, F. (2006). Athlete-Perceived Coaching Behaviors: Relating TwoMeasurement Traditions. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 205-213.Kenow, L. & Williams, J. (1999). Coach-Athlete Compatibility and Athlete´s Perception ofCoaching Behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22 (2), 251-259.Labrador, F.J. (2008). Técnicas operantes III: Sistemas de organización de contingencias. In Francisco JavierLabrador Encinas (Coord.) Técnicas de modificación de conducta. (pp.339-360). Madrid:Pirámide.Lorenzo, A. & Jiménez, S. (2007). Coaches´ Development Through Interaction: BasketballCoaches Communities of Practice. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 21-23.Ortega, E., Jiménez, J.M., Palao, J.M., & Sáinz, P. (2008). Diseño y validación de un cuestionariopara valorar las preferencias y satisfacción en jóvenes jugadores de baloncesto. Cuadernos dePsicología del Deporte, 8 (2), 39-58.Palao, J.M., Ortega, E., & Olmedilla, A. (2004). Technical and tactical preferences amongbasketball players in formative years. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research, 4, 38-41.Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & Hoff, J. (2000). Toward an holisticunderstanding of the coaching process. Quest, 52, 186-199.Smoll, F.L. & Smith, R.E. (2009). Claves para ser un entrenador excelente. Barcelona: INDE.437Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 433-437Montero, A.,  Ezquerro, M. & Saavedra, M.. Economía de fichas y baloncesto

Application of a Token Economy Program and Preferences for Basketball Players

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB