Meta-análisis del efecto de la interferencia contextual en el desempeño de destrezas motrices
Loading...
Date
Authors
Jiménez Díaz, Judith
Salazar Rojas, Wálter
Morera Castro, María
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
El presente estudio amplia un meta-análisis realizado recientemente y examina el Efecto de la Interferencia Contextual (EIC), por medio de la técnica meta-analítica. Después de una búsqueda de literatura en once bases de datos digitales y referencias, 25 investigaciones cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión establecidos para el análisis intra-grupos, mientras que 21 estudios para el análisis entre-grupos. Bajo un modelo de efectos aleatorios, para el diseño intra-grupos se obtuvo un total de 150 TE individuales. Se encontró que el grupo de PB mejoró su desempeño en la fase de adquisición (TE = 0.69; n= 39; CI95%= 0.40 a 0.97; Q= 204.3) y lo disminuyó en la fase de retención (TE = -0.25; n= 43; IC95%= -0.51 a -0.02; Q= 207.6). El grupo de PA mejoró en la fase de adquisición (TE = 0.79; n= 31; IC95%= 0.43 a 1.16; Q= 200.5) y no presentó cambio en la fase de retención (TE = 0.12; n= 37; IC95%= -0.12 a 0.38; Q= 158.4). Para el diseño entre-grupos se obtuvo un total de 68 TE individuales y se encontró que en la adquisición el grupo de PB presentó un desempeño mejor con respecto al grupo de PA (TE = -0.15; n= 31; IC95%= -0.32 a -0.01; Q= 41.16) y en la retención ambos grupos presentan un desempeño similar (TE = -0.02; n= 37; IC95%= -0.20 a 0.26; Q= 124.3). Los resultados apoyan el EIC en la adquisición y confirman que este efecto no se puede generalizar y está mediado por diferentes factores.
The present study extend a recent meta-analysis and use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the Contextual Interference Effect (CIE). Randomized trials of block (B) group versus random (R) group skill acquisition were included by searching eleven databases, cross-referencing and expert review. 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for the within-groups analysis and 21 studies for between-groups analysis. Following a random model, for the within-group analysis, a total of 150 effect size were calculated. The B group significantly improved performance during the acquisition phase (ES = 0.69, n= 39, CI95%= 0.40 to 0.97, Q= 204.3) and significantly decreased performance during the retention phase (ES = -0.25, n=43, CI95%= -0.51 to -0.02; Q= 207.6). The R group also significantly improved performance during the acquisition phase (ES = 0.79, n=31, CI95%= 0.43 to 1.16; Q= 200.5) with no statistically significant changes during the retention phase (ES = 0.12, n=37, CI95%= -0.12 to 0.38; Q= 158). For between-group analysis, a total of 68 effect size were calculated, the B group outperformed the R group in acquisition phase (ES = -0.15, n=31, CI95%= -0.32 to -0.01; Q= 41.16) with no statistically significant between-group differences during the retention phase (ES = -0.02, n=37, CI95%= -0.20 to 0.26; Q= 124.3). The results shown support the CIE for acquisition phase and confirm that the effect is mediated by the age of the participant, the amount of trials, the type of the skill considering muscular group and precision of the movement, and external validity of the study.
The present study extend a recent meta-analysis and use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the Contextual Interference Effect (CIE). Randomized trials of block (B) group versus random (R) group skill acquisition were included by searching eleven databases, cross-referencing and expert review. 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for the within-groups analysis and 21 studies for between-groups analysis. Following a random model, for the within-group analysis, a total of 150 effect size were calculated. The B group significantly improved performance during the acquisition phase (ES = 0.69, n= 39, CI95%= 0.40 to 0.97, Q= 204.3) and significantly decreased performance during the retention phase (ES = -0.25, n=43, CI95%= -0.51 to -0.02; Q= 207.6). The R group also significantly improved performance during the acquisition phase (ES = 0.79, n=31, CI95%= 0.43 to 1.16; Q= 200.5) with no statistically significant changes during the retention phase (ES = 0.12, n=37, CI95%= -0.12 to 0.38; Q= 158). For between-group analysis, a total of 68 effect size were calculated, the B group outperformed the R group in acquisition phase (ES = -0.15, n=31, CI95%= -0.32 to -0.01; Q= 41.16) with no statistically significant between-group differences during the retention phase (ES = -0.02, n=37, CI95%= -0.20 to 0.26; Q= 124.3). The results shown support the CIE for acquisition phase and confirm that the effect is mediated by the age of the participant, the amount of trials, the type of the skill considering muscular group and precision of the movement, and external validity of the study.
Description
Keywords
Práctica aleatoria, Práctica en bloque, Metaanálisis, Aprendizaje motor
Citation
https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/pem/article/view/23830