4.6 Article

Use of dual-task methodology for skill assessment and development: Examples from rugby league

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 7-18

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.514280

Keywords

Attentional demands; automaticity; skill; training; skill learning

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the attentional demands of drawing and passing in rugby league players and investigated the effects of single-task and dual-task training on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of skill in these athletes. In Study 1, high-skilled and lesser-skilled rugby league players performed a standardized 2-on-1 drill under single-task (primary skill in isolation) and dual-task (primary skill while performing a secondary verbal tone recognition task) conditions. No differences were detected in primary task performance between groups, although the performance of the high-skilled players was more resistant to skill decrement under dual-task conditions. In Study 2, high-performance rugby league players were randomly allocated to either a single-task or dual-task training group. Each group underwent 8 weeks of training between the pre- and post-test sessions. While the mean improvement for draw and pass proficiency under dual-task conditions in the dual-task training group was greater than in the single-task training group (10.0% vs. 2.3%), the differences, while providing a moderate effect size (d=0.57), were not statistically significant. These results suggest that the attentional demands of drawing and passing are reduced in high-skilled rugby league players compared with their lesser-skilled counterparts. In addition, compared with single-task training, dual-task training appears to improve the ability to perform dual-task draw and pass tasks (possibly through an improvement in time-sharing skills). Further studies are required to verify the efficacy of dual-task training as a training stimulus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available