UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM SOLVING AMONG INTERMEDIATE (NATIONAL BACKUP) AND NOVICE (ACADEMY) BADMINTON PLAYER

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM

SOLVING AMONG INTERMEDIATE (NATIONAL

BACKUP) AND NOVICE (ACADEMY)

BADMINTON PLAYER

Kalam Azad Isa

Master of Sport Science

Faculty of Sport Science and Recreation

October 2010

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM

SOLVING AMONG INTERMEDIATE (NATIONAL

BACKUP) AND NOVICE (ACADEMY)

BADMINTON PLAYER

Kalam Azad Isa

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Sport Science

Faculty of Sport Science and Recreation

October 2010

i

ECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with the regulations of

Universiti Teknologi MARA. It is original and is the result of my own work, unless

otherwise indicated or acknowledged as referenced work. This thesis has not been

submitted to any other academic institution or non-academic institution for any other

degree or qualification.

In the event that my thesis to be found violates the conditions mentioned above, I

voluntarily waive the right of conferment of my degree and agree to be subjected to the

disciplinary rules and regulations of Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Name of Candidate : Kalam Azad bin Isa

Candidate’s ID No : 2008410192

Programme : Master of Science (Sport Science)

Faculty : Sports Science and Recreation

Thesis Title : Relationship of sport skill and problem solving among

intermediate (National backup) and novice (academy)

badminton

players.

Signature of Candidate :

Date :

ii

ABSTRACT

The sport skill and problem solving had become a method in comparing the athlete

performance, but there were limited studies being done using intermediate subjects in

determine the relationship within these two variables. The purposes of this study are to

identify the relationship between sport skill and problem solving among intermediate and

novice badminton players. A total number of thirty (n = 30) intermediate subjects from

National Badminton Backup squad and thirty (n = 30) novice subjects from Badminton

academy were employed in this study. A cross-sectional study design was conducted in

this study. Adopted badminton stroke accuracy from Blomqvist (2000) and adopted

motor sequencing task from Vickers (1988) were used as instrumentation in measuring

the current sport skill and problem solving within the intermediate and novice subjects.

Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and independent sample t- test were implemented

in determination of correlation of sport skill and problem solving within subjects and the

differences in mean score between intermediate and novice. The results showed that

intermediate subjects had a moderate correlation within sport skill and problem solving

with r = 0.542, p < 0.002compared to novice. Intermediate also showed significant

differences in sport skill and problem solving compared to novice with p < 0.000. Thus,

this study finding indicated that the relationships of sport skill and problem solving

showed a moderate correlation between intermediate and novice badminton players.

Keyword: Badminton players, Sport skill, Problem solving, Intermediate, Novice,

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my greatest gratitude to the wonderful group of people who have

helped make this ‘journey’ a reality. Thank you to:

My great supervisor En. Borhan Yusof, my Postgraduate Coordinator, Datin

Sarina Md Yusof and all lecturers from Faculty of Sport Science and Recreation

(Shah Alam) for their extensive time, suggestions, enthusiasm and

encouragement. You guys are my role models.

National Sport Council staff for giving me a flexible time and understanding in

my role as post grade student.

UiTM for giving me an opportunity to be part of my life since past 10 years.

Sekolah Sukan Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur Badminton Academy, subjects for their

support and commitment.

Jukie, Siti, Mek Sue, Dym, Yus, Azie……for a wonderful journey together…

My parents, my wife, my friends, my lovely lecturer……. This ‘journey’ have

taught me the meaning of life, love, trust and family….

May Allah bless you all….Amin

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY OF WORK i

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLES

iv

vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF APPENDICES viii

I INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of problem 2

1.2 Research objectives 4

1.3 Research hypotheses 5

1.4 Significance of study 6

1.5 Delimitation 6

1.6 limitation 7

1.7 Operational definition of terms 8

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction 9

2.1 Three-phase framework of learning skill theory 11

2.2 Information Processing Theory 13

2.3 Nature of game performance 16

2.4 Sport skill study in measuring human performance 18

2.5 Cognitive study in determination of human performance 19

2.6 Pattern of sport performance in different level of athlete 22

III METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction 24

3.1 Conceptual framework 25

3.2 Research design 26

3.2.1 Selection of subjects

3.2.2 Sample size

3.2.3 Threats and validity

28

29

29

3.3 Pilot study 30

3.3.1 Pilot study procedure 32

3.3.2 Assessing the validity and reliability of the instrument 33

3.4 Instrumentation 35

3.4.1 Badminton stroke accuracy 35

3.4.2 Motor sequencing task 37

3.5 Procedure for actual study 38

3.6 Testing protocol 39

3.6.1 Badminton stroke accuracy test 39

v

3.6.2 Motor sequencing task 40

3.7 Statistical analysis 41

IV ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.0 Introduction 42

4.1 Demographic data of the subjects 44

4.2 Correlations of mean score in badminton serve stroke and

smash stroke within novice and intermediate badminton

players.

45

4.2.1 Correlation of mean score in serve stroke and smash

stroke within novice badminton players

45

4.2.2 Correlation of mean score in serve stroke and smash

stroke within intermediate badminton players

46

4.3 Correlation of mean score in problem solving for novice and

intermediate badminton players

47

4.3.1 Correlation of mean in motor sequencing task for

novice badminton players

47

4.3.2 Correlation of mean in motor sequencing task for


48

4.4 Correlation of mean score in sport skill and problem solving

for novice and intermediate badminton player.

50

4.4.1 Correlation of mean score in badminton stroke

accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) and problem

solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within

novice badminton players.

50

4.4.2 Correlation of mean score in badminton stroke

accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor

sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1,

MSTime2) within intermediate badminton players

52

4.5 Data assumptions 53

4.6 Hypotheses testing 54

4.6.1 Summary of hypotheses 1 55




V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Discussions 63

5.1 Conclusion of study 72

5.2 Recommendations for future study 75

REFERENCES 77

vi

LIST OF TABLE

TABLE PAGE

1. Summary of reliability coefficient for sport skill instrument 33

2. Summary of reliability coefficient for Motor sequencing task 34

3. Demographic data of subjects (novice & intermediate badminton players) 44

4. Summary of the correlation between mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) within novice badminton players.

45

5. Summary of the correlation between mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) within intermediate badminton players.

46

6. Summary of the correlation between mean score in motor sequencing task

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within novice badminton players.

48

7. Summary of the correlation between mean score in motor sequencing task

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within intermediate badminton players.

49

8. Summary of the correlation between mean score in badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2,

MSTime1, MSTime2) within novice badminton players.

51


(serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2,

MSTime1, MSTime2) within intermediate badminton players.

52

10. Summary of the correlation between mean score of serve and smash between

novice and intermediate badminton players.

54


(serve stroke and smash stroke) and problem solving (MST1,MST2,

MSTIME1, MSTIME2) in novice and intermediate badminton players

56

12. Summary of the independent sample t-test for the differences between mean

score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) between


58

13. Summary of the independent sample t-test of the differences between mean

score in problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice

and intermediate badminton players.

60

vii

LIST OF FIGURE

FIGURE PAGE

1. Model of expanded human information-processing model 14

2. Conceptual framework of the study 25

3. Design of the study 27

4. Badminton design for serve, drop and smash test 36

5. Liner correlation graph of mean score in badminton stroke

accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) between novice and

intermediate badminton players.

55

6. Liner correlation graph of mean score in badminton stroke

accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) with problem solving

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice and


57

7. Differences of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve

stroke and smash stroke) between novice and intermediate

badminton players.

59

8. Differences of mean score in problem solving (MST1, MST2,

MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice and intermediate badminton

players.

61

viii

LIST OF APPENDICS

PAGE

A. Test battery schedule 83

B. Information for subjects & Consent form 84

C. Data collection sheet 86

D. Motor sequencing task 88

E. Hypothetical changes across age in the relative importance of

knowledge, experience and skill for high strategy tasks

90

F. Illustration of testing protocol 91

G. Status of approval of projects by UiTM ethics committee 93

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

Badminton has become very popular among people in various ages since the sport

competed in Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992. Highly strategic, time constraint, skill

demanding inside the element of badminton game emerged numerous researchers to

investigate the badminton player’s ability in sport skill and cognitive skill for

determination on the level of performance (Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000; Kim, Seonjin, Lee,

Ryu, Kim, Lee, 2007; Munzert, 2008).

Sport skill has become a major determination in measuring athlete performance

(Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000; Davids, Lees, & Burwitz, 2009). From the sport skill

measuring, it showed direct indication of sport skill ability between different group level

that can be term as novice and expert (Villa, Gonzalez & Iglesias. 2007). Expert was

showed they able to perform well in the sport their engage and have a very high

proficiency in the sport skill itself. In sport performance, sport skill is essential in

executing high strategy sports such as badminton due to nature of the sport that require

the player to execute the shuttle as accuracy as possible (Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000;

Hastie, Sinelnikov, & Guarino, 2009).

2

Beside sport skill, studies also investigated the exceptional performance by an

individual is directly related with their ability cognitive skill. For example, Villa,

Gonzalez, & Iglesias (2007) founded that a highly skilled tennis player was able to use

their cognitive skill in resolving problems during a competition. Besides that,

Kioumortzoglou (2000) and Obayashi (2004) also found that a high skilled player was

able to adjust the game situation in responding to correct selection based on their

knowledge from retrieval of the information stored in memory during engaging in past

game experiences.

Above all, even past studies investigated the sport skill (Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000;

Davids, Lees, & Burwitz, 2009) and problem solving (Villa et. al, 2007; Yarrow, Brown,

& Krakauer, 2009) in determination on athlete performance. However, few studies

investigated the relationship of sport skill and problem solving especially in local setting.

Thus, the researcher was interested in investigating the relationship of sport skill with

problem solving among Malaysia badminton players. In depth, the researcher also

interested in investigating the differences of sport skill and problem solving among

intermediate and novice Malaysia badminton players.

1.1 Statement of problem

Accuracy of stroke has been suggested serve as important role in all racquet sport (Lees,

2003; Villa et. al, 2007; Sakurai & Othsuki, 2000) including badminton (Munzert, 2008).

The nature of badminton in gaining point from series of rallies requires them to stroke as

3

accurate as possible and ended it with the shuttle touching opponent’s court. There are

several types of strokes in badminton such as serving, smashing, backhand and drop shot

involved during a series of badminton rallies. According to Sakurai and Ohstuki (2000),

smashing and drop shot which succeeds in opponent court was the best stroke in gaining

point during game. Thus, the accuracy of each stroke by intermediate player was reported

more accurate and powerful rather than novice player.

An intermediate player was associated with better problem solving in response

with sport skill and carried out the sport task compared to novice player (Zhoudji &

Thou, 2003). The player able to applied a solid amount of information such as opponent

pattern of playing during game and able to convey it into best action during the whole

duration of the match. Besides, they also able to adapt in various situation and more

analytic in analyzing the opponent’s playing style such as their strong point, weaknesses,

attitude, rhythm of playing and stamina during match (Raadt, Toleman, & Watson. 2004).

Therefore, this study was design to investigate the correlation between different

types of strokes in badminton players and the correlation of badminton stroke accuracy in

problem solving in badminton players. In depth, this study also designed to investigate

the differences of intermediate versus novice badminton player in stroke accuracy and

problem solving.

4

1.2 Research objectives

This study focused on the correlation of stroke accuracy and problems solving in

badminton players. In depth, this study also intends to investigate the differences of

stroke accuracy and problems solving between different groups.

Specifically, the objectives of this study were:

a. To identified the relationship of stroke accuracy and problems solving in

Malaysia badminton players.

b. To measure the correlations between different types of badminton strokes;

problems solving within Malaysia badminton players.

c. To determine the differences of score in stroke accuracy and problem solving

between intermediate and novice Malaysia badminton players.

5

1.3 Research hypotheses

This focused on the correlation of stroke accuracy and problem solving in badminton

players. Therefore, based on the statement of problem and the objective of study, the

following null hypotheses were tested in this study:

Ho1 = There was no significant correlation in mean score of serve and smash between


Ho2 = There was no significant correlation in mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

and problem solving between novice and intermediate badminton players.

Ho3 = There was no significant difference in mean score of serve and smash between


Ho4 = There was no significant difference in mean score of problem solving between


6

1.4 Significance of the study

Apparently, there were limited research that evaluates the correlation of badminton stroke

accuracy and problems solving in badminton players. Similarly, there were less research

done to examine the level of differences of stroke accuracy and problem solving between

different levels of badminton players. An investigation of badminton stroke accuracy and

problem solving in badminton players enable to dealing with better understanding on

level of sport skill and problems solving in badminton players performance.

The findings from this study can be used as a guideline of determination Malaysia

intermediate badminton player’s level in sport skill and problem solving. Beside this, the

finding can provide useful information on sport skill performance and problems solving

ability in intermediate players for other racquet sports.

1.5 Delimitations

The delimitations of this study were as following:

i. Test battery was delimited to serve strokes and smash strokes for sport skills test.

ii. Test battery was delimited to motor sequencing task for problem solving test.

iii. Subjects who free from any disease and injuries during this study.

iv. Subjects who engaged in organize badminton training under supervision of

National Sport Council (NSC) and Badminton Association of Malaysia (BAM)

with at least one year and not more seven years of experience.

7

v. Subjects who fully recovered from previous physical training with at least 48

hours prior actual testing protocol.

1.6 Limitation of study

There were several limitations while preparing and getting the data for this study. The

data may be affected due to limitation as following:

i. This study cannot control the primary influence such as genetics factors, maturity

factors, training factors, experience factors and psychological factors and

interaction of primary influences before this study begin

ii. This study cannot control the secondary influences such as socio-cultural factors

and contextual factors before this study begin.

8

1.7 Operational definitions of terms

To avoid different interpretations, given below were the operational definitions for terms

used in this study:

Intermediate - This study referring intermediate as male national badminton

backup players’ where range of age was 13 to 15 years old.

They were poses not more than seven years of badminton

experience under attachment of National Sport Council

(NSC) program and Badminton Association of Malaysia

(BAM) training program.

Novice - This study referring novice as male Malaysian badminton

players where range of age was 13 to 15 years old. They

were poses at least one year but not more than two years of

badminton experience.

Sport skill -

This study referring sport skill as serve stroke and smash

stroke that measure the badminton stroke accuracy on the

subjects that represent the sport skill level.

Problem solving - This study referring problem solving as motor sequencing

task that measure the problem solving ability on the subjects

represent the cognitive level.

9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.0 Introduction

Excellency in sport skill and problematic solving ability studied in numerous

researchers (Hastie, Sinelkov, & Guarino, 2009; David, Less, & Burwitz, 2000; Sakurai

& Ohtsuki, 2000; Adrejkovic, 2009; Macquet, 2009). In investigation of the ability on

sport skill and problem solving, previous studies always compared it by using different

level of group that can be term as novice, intermediate and expert. (Adrejkovic, 2009;

McPherson, 2001; Villa et. al, 2007). Yet, from the past studies in comparison within

different level of players (novice, intermediate, expert), studies indicated that expert

players were more superior in all aspect of sport skill such as accuracy, power, agility and

so on. Similar results also were showed in problem solving between different level

players (novice, intermediate, expert) that indicated that expert players were seem to be

more reliable in taking advantages in all tactical aspect such as analyzing opponent game

play and derived it into their cognitive skill and convey it into appropriate action in

solving the current situation problems (Schack, 2003).

Sport skill was a learn process, in theoretical of three-phase framework of

learning skill. Fitts & Posner, 1967 identified the phases of individual changes sport skill

ability within individual. These phases were known as (1) cognitive stage, (2) motor

stage and (3) autonomous stage. Study by Paques, Fruchaart, Dru and Mullet (2005) also

10

investigate the explanations in understanding the different level (novice, intermediate,

expert) performance in decision making process during solving problems, the theory of

human processing information by Schmidt (1991) described how decision making were

make in series of stages. These stages were (1) stimulus identification (perception), (2)

response selection (decision) and (3) response programming (action).

Even past studies established the different level player (novice, intermediate,

expert) either in sport skill or problem solving ability (Hastie, Sinelkov, & Guarino,

2009; David, Less, & Burwitz, 2000; Adrejkovic, 2009; McPherson, 2001; Villa et. al,

2007; Schack, 2003; Blomqvist, 2000), limited study indicated the correlation between

sport skill and problem solving (Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000; Blomqvist, 2000).

Therefore this study main objective was to investigate the correlation in sport skill and

cognitive ability within badminton players. In additional, this study also intends to

understand the level of intermediate player in their sport skill and cognitive ability. Hence

from this literature of review, this study intend to seek deep understanding in the nature

of badminton playing, sport skill relation in sport performance, importance of cognitive

skill in sport performance and finally the differences of sport characteristics between

different level of players.

11

2.1 Three-phase framework of learning skill theory

The ability of individual to learn and refine sport skill greatly affected their ability in

performing sport skill such as accuracy in smashing, powerful of stroke, consistence in

execution and so on. For this matter, past studies have investigated the skill level that has

discriminate among different level of sport skill between novices, intermediate and expert

players (Villa, et. al, 2007; Magill, 2004; Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000). Hasti,

Sinelkov, & Guarino (2009) indicated that a skilled player was a competent sport person

and has sufficient amount of skill to participate in game satisfactory and understand to

execute strategies appropriately. This can be explained how a skill player able to execute

a movement such as kicking in football with high certainty and sufficient amount of

power.

Generally, it agreed that skill learning involve hours of practice and extended

period of time to acquire it. Schmidt and Wrisberg (2008) stated that skill learning was

continuous and dynamic process without distant and definite stages. A novice player that

learned some skill such as cognitive skill and sport skill will progressively through a

various stages to becoming expert. Over time, a novice player will become more

consistencies in execution, reducing in error and performance will become more

effortless.

12

Due to the skill learning process, changes within phases can be known as stage of

learning, these concepts were developed by Fitts and Posner in 1967. These stages were

known as (1) cognitive stage, (2) motor stage and (3) autonomous stage.

During cognitive stage, novice confronted with an unfamiliar task and they try to

understand the particular skill. As been explained by Magill (2004), during this stage the

learner form a cognitive picture of sport skill and what was require them to be done. In

detail, during this stage, a novice players sport skills were very poor, halting and

performing in numbers of gross error. Yet there were aware of the mistakes but them

unsure how to correct it. Positively during this stages, the novice ‘self talk’ will

progressing their increment in knowledge by determine the mistakes and correction

through their action. Study by Jowett (2003) indicated that the ability and willingness to

work hard as well as to work harder were important for a player and this action can lead

them into success on the proverbial playing field.

In second stage of learning stage, in this stage, the fundamental and mechanic of

the sport skill have been learned by novice. They solved most of the strategic or cognitive

challenge by performing less mistakes and more consistence. Now, the player able to

focus and refining sport skill by organizing more effective pattern of movement

(Nourrit,2003). The player movement becomes more coordinated and they refine to the

task. During this stage, player also able to use environment information such timing and

accuracy .According to Maxwell (2000), novice performer begin to improve in their golf

13

putting skill after 3,000 trials. Less energy expenditure also been reported during these

stages.

Later on, after many hours (more than 10,000 hours) of training and gaining in

experience, the skills become habitual and automatic. In this stage was known as

autonomous stage. Here, improvement progression is slow but in consistence manner.

Schmidt and Wrisberg (2008) stated that, during this stage, most of the skill was

performed without thinking because it require less attention, receive more high order

cognitive activities. Beilock (2008) indicated that during autonomous stage, a player has

a good timing and them able to can detect error and readjust it. Psychologically, this

developed self confidence and risk taking during competition within this stage.

2.2 Information Processing Theory

The processing model has been used widely by many studies to examine the

cognitive factors and their affect on sport performance (Paques, Fruchaart, Dru, &

Mullet, 2005; Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). Human information processing theory was a

branch of the communication sciences that attempts to analyze the processing of

knowledge through abstract means such as how they making decision in solving the

problems their facing.

This model has been developed by Schmidt (1988, 1991) explain how sport skill

learning with a theoretical model. This model showed a player as a processor of

14

information similar in many ways on how a computer operates. This approach grows out

of human-factors work and Information theory (Paques, Fruchaart, Dru, & Mullet, 2005).

A human factor refers to the study of how humans operate in the environment in which

they live and perform. In this model, the person begin to deal with available information

from external environment (input), continues to process by using variety of operations

and eventually produce a response (output).

The proposed model of information processing was based on the three stages;

(1) stimulus-identification, (2) response selection, and (3) response-programming.

(figure 1). As indicated in this figure, stimulus information enters the system, then

information was transformed through various stages, and then a response output was

made (decision making).

Figure 1: Model of expanded human information-processing model. Adapted from

Schimidt and Wrisberg (2008)

The input was represented by a stimulus such as picture, video, illuminating a

light, sound, signal that represent as real-world environment to the players. Than it

15

continue with the first stage: stimulus identification was considered a perception stage. In

this stage, the player has the task of identifying the incoming information that also known

as stimulus identification. During this stage, the players analyze the content of

environmental information by using two operations to observing stimulus detection and

to recognition the pattern using vision, touch, audition, kinesthesis and smell. Through

these operations, a stimulus was detected and identified by the player. In the operation of

stimulus detection, a stimulus was presented (picture, video, sound) and must be

transformed into a code of neurological impulses that goes to the brain (McPherson,

2000). Once the signal reaches memory, the clarity and intensity of the stimulus help to

arouse the response (McPherson, 2000). In pattern recognition, the subject must extract a

pattern or feature from the stimuli presented, since stimuli that enter the system were

rarely unitary (Starkes, Helsen, & Jack, 2001). Therefore, it was through these operations

of stimulus identification that the goal of identifying and recognizing the stimulus as a

part of a pattern was accomplished.

During second stage, by using the information from stimulus identification stage,

the performer must decide on how to respond to it in the response selection stage. The

decisions about what to do can be studied using the choice reaction time paradigm.

Reaction time was a measure of the time from the arrival of a signal to the start of the

response to that signal. The basis of the choice on reaction time was that if increasing the

number of alternatives causes an increase in the choice on reaction time, then the

increased reaction time was associated with changes in the way response-selection stage

processed the information (Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2008). The duration of this stage was

16

affected by the number of stimulus-response alternatives and stimulus response

compatibility (Colcombe & Kramer, 2003; Beilock, 2008).

In third stage, once the player has in the response selection stage and choosed an

action that been decided and before the action can be started. He or she must prepare an

action that was called as response programming stage. During this stage, the subject

organizes the motor system for the desired movement. This stage requires that some

program be prepared for activation, that the motor system be ready for the program to the

movement or known as output. The final result from the activities in all three level

process of information processing, an abstract ideas must be changed into muscular

action (Gobert & Retshitzki, 2004). The duration of this stage was related to the variables

of complexity and response duration (Callow & Hardy, 2004).

2.3 Nature of the game performance

Badminton was classified as open skill sport (Blomqvist, 2000; Sakurai &

Othsuki, 2000). Due to this sport demand, a badminton player was required to read

opponent action quickly on offensive and defensive pattern of playing (Blomqvist,

Luhtanen, Laakso, & Keskinen, 2000). The game itself was compensate with such fast

action movement such as smashing, short stokes during split second and require the

player to make as fast as possible in decision making as described by Blomqvist (2000).

A high skilled badminton player was able to read opponent game pattern such as their

physical ability, skill ability and tactical ability (Omosegaard, 1996). By combining those

17

advantages (sport skill and cognitive skill); it permitted a skilled individual to select the

key component of the game by taking early information and transmit it into rapid

execution during game (Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000).

According to Villa et. al, 2007, sport can be divided into cognitive skill and sport

skill components, the cognitive component was the knowledge and decision making such

ability in solving problem by using external information such as audio and visual then

using experience learn from the past and convert it into pattern recognition by selecting

the best action to be produce. Meanwhile in skill component, motor skill execution such

as court dribbling and smashing were determined. During a game situation, the quality of

decision making was important as execution of the motor skills and it both determine the

successful in sport performance.

Studying the nature of an athlete in sport was complex interaction form of

physical, knowledge, skill and talent (Glazier & Davids, 2009). It may differs from other

field of study, mainly, during game, the decision making must be very fast in less time

with the athlete know what to do and what was not necessary to be do. (Hyllegard. et al.,

2003).

18

2.4 Sport skill study in measuring human performance

Sport skill has become as the major determination in human performance (Schmidt &

Wrisberg, 2008; Cote & Baker, 2007; Hasties, Sinelkov, & Guarino, 2009). Skill can be

view as an act or task been perform by a player that can be classified as discrete skill,

serial skill and continuous skill (William & Hodges, 2004). Sport skill can be applied in

wide range of different task according to the nature of the sport (William & Hodges,

2004) for example a skillful athlete was someone who likely has poses the ability to make

an accurate action such as kicking in football, precise timing in baseball hitting, and

consistency of throwing such as basketball. Cote and Baker (2007) indicated that high

skilled athlete able to showed an excellent execution skill and have stronger response in

sport skill and higher percentage in success and in skill execution. In measuring those

skills, Schimidt and Wrisberg (2004) has recommended use the analogy of toolbox in

which many available in sport skill such as battery skill test in identified the level of sport

skill poses by the athlete such as shooting a rifle, performing gymnast movement and

badminton stroke.

Development of sport skill was been reflected on what the requirement of the

certain sports (Lees, 2003). But in term of refining the precision and accuracy, years of

training were require most. Yarrow, Brown and Krakuer (2009) indicated that sport skill

was been obtain through hours of training (10,000 hours) and years of rehearsal (more

than 10 years). A high skilled player engaged in countless hour of training make them

more matured in sport skill aspect make them more adapt in making skill execution

19

(Yarrow, Brown, & Krakuer, 2009). Studies indicated high skilled player able to cope

and react according to the situation on given task with correct amount of sport skill

execution such as stroke power and accuracy (Villa, et. al, 2007; Ward & Williams,

2003). This can be showed by high skilled player able to perform a sport skill according

to the requirement of the situation and how they can manage to do it fluently with almost

no mistakes during the execution. In further study, Feng, et. al, (2009) studied the

influence of open skill on the performance of speed and reaction time in athlete, the

studied indicated that significant difference among high skilled and low skilled due to

autonomous of an high skilled individual can react according to the task.

2.5 Cognitive study in determination of human performance

Problem solving become an instrument in determining the human ability in solving

problematic task according to the situation requirement or demand such as solving a

riddle, making decision and understanding a motor movement. (Raadt, Toleman, &

Watson, 2004.) Problem solving had a close relationship in cognitive skill ability

(McPherson, 2000). Therefore, it has become one of the human performance researchers

interest in investigating cognitive factor of an individual in sport performance.

The concept of cognitive study can be applied in various fields such as

psychology, philosophy, computer science and so on (Burn, Lee, & Vickers, 2004).

Cognitive study provided how a solving problem and decision were made by a player

such as taking the external cue such as visual, audio, situation then take it as raw data to

20

be process in mind than convey it into solving decision and make it into an execution

(Ward & William, 2003; Sakurai & Othsuki, 2000 ). The process also known as problem

solving process that can be simplified as how the player solve the problems using their

previous experience that stored in their mind than they choose the best problem solving

for current situation (Andrejkovic, 2009.). According to Paques, Fruchart, Dru and Mullet

(2005), a high skilled player was more focus in attention, more effective in recognizing,

better in analysis and translation from external cues. Thus, the high skilled athlete can

carry out the cues and able to predict movement from opponent then able to react in

relevant movement.

The process of problem solving action in term of sport skill has been investigated

by using cognitive approach in determining the level between different levels of sport

performer. In present studies (Macquet, 2009). Problem solving approach proved as

modalities in measuring the capacities of player in resolving various problematic

problems such as how does their taking raw information from the current situation and

convey it into appropriate action during time a limited constraint of time. In time

constraint sport such as badminton, a player need to decide which action was optimal for

current situation, therefore they could make use the external data and taking action base

on the game pattern, this process also known as pattern recognition in cognitive study.

Pattern recognition was defined as an action of detection of pattern explicit by

taking raw data that been input and it followed by an action based on the pattern or

assigning a probability to its possible action based on categories of pattern (Paques,

21

Fruchart, Dru, & Mullet, 2005). In human information processes, Pattern recognition can

be simplified as a wide variety of mental processes used to analyze from raw data

example using audio, visual or movement then it been recalled the information from the

memory (recognition of pattern) then make a appropriate action base from the

information(Zoudji & Thon, 2003). For example, a badminton player taking the

recognition of opponent game playing, stroke accuracy, fitness level and so on, later they

process these information and come out with correct execution in returning the shuttle

into opponent court with high certainty.

Pattern recognition has it long history in measuring the capacities of recognition

in human performance, Zoudji and Thon (2003) investigate how pattern recognition

explained the working memory and long term memory can stored information in brain

and how the speed in accessing the memory been done by sport performers. They

indicated that when in time constraint game situation, a player decided in which action

was more appropriate for current situation that they could engage in deep cognitive

processing in deep information. This explain why most high skilled player do took part in

time constraint sport such as badminton, the player could improvise with the current

game situation such as the strength and weaknesses of opponent, the current level of

opponent fitness and pattern of game playing into account, than later they took part in

what was the most appropriate action to deal with the opponent stroke in little amount of

time. To supporting this evidence, Feng et. al, (2009) indicated that high skilled player

was more focus during the recognition in game situation rather than less skilled players,

high skilled player able to be more political searching and more effective in recognizing,

22

analysis using their visual cues in translating their action. Therefore, it simply defined

that players in different level were different in effectiveness of predicting the opponent

movement by recalling and recognizing the complex movement in different level of

accuracy and time manage.

2.6 Pattern of sport performance in different level athlete

Skill behavior has become a behavior that underlies within each human activity

(Obayashi, 2004; Kioumourtzoglou, et. al, 2000), in research setting, the sense of skill

has become major agenda and has been mixed with the relationship of motor control in

order to determine the level of differences between different level of performance such as

technical and tactical abilities. Here, researcher always categories high skill performer as

expert and low skill performer as novices. But, in this study, researcher was interested to

measure of differences within the sub-expert performer or known as intermediate

between novice performers due to most previous studies (Vickers, 1986; Hastie,

Sinelnikov, & Guarino. 2009) abandoned this group in measuring human performance.

Intermediate player was likely to be characterized as a performer that poses

medium level of sport skills and cognitive level (Kioumourtzoglou, et. al, 2000.), this

evidence can be justified by several studies (Vickers, 1988; Maxwell, 2000) that

implemented battery skill test among intermediate level player either on their sport skill

nor cognitively. Early study by Vickers (1988) used intermediate gymnast compared to

expert and novice in assessing their problem solving studies, the gymnast showed

23

unstructured sequence of gymnast action and they been asked to rearrange the sequence

accordingly, it surprisingly that intermediate gymnast produce more errors than expert,

yet they manage to get better result than novice. Later studies also used intermediate

player as subject to be compared to expert and novice group (William et. al, 1999;

Starkes & Ericsson, 2003.) same result were obtained where intermediate was lesser than

expert in performance but slightly or more better in novice performers.

The differences among individual can be explained theoretically by Tillaar and

Ettema (2006), it was hypnotized that relation of skill and ability of individual

performance can be differentiate using the general ability such as perceptual speed ability

and psychomotor ability. As such of human differences, most studies using expert as

benchmark in measuring the human performance differences. According to Ward and

Williams (2003), their study indicated that an expert was typically exhibit more effective

and more accurate in recognizing and recalling pattern of play from memory that kept.

Williams and Hodges (2004) also strengthen this by proving expert poses high domain of

knowledge and they able to link the input information with existing knowledge structure;

therefore, expert were more faster and more accurate in recognizing and recalling pattern

of play and this may lead by the result from the expert enhanced the knowledge of

situational probabilities (Ward & William, 2003).

24

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This study was a cross-sectional research design to obtain the research evidence

concerning the correlation in sport skill and cognitive level on the performance of

adolescent badminton players. To ensure that useful and reliable data were collected,

certain procedures were considered necessary in the selection of sample population.

These procedures will be strictly adhered to during the entire course of study. This

chapter was specifically outlined on how the research was conducted.

The chapter presents the methods and procedures that were adhered in conducting

this study. The details were presented under following headings:

i. Research framework

ii. Research design

iii. Sampling

iv. Instrumentation

v. Data collection procedures

vi. Statistical analysis

25

3.1 Research framework

The main concept of this research was to obtained research evidence concerning the

correlation between two main variables; (1) sport skill, and (2) problem solving in

adolescent badminton players. Therefore, there will be one group of intermediate

badminton player and one group in novice badminton player. In conceptualizing the

framework of the study, both groups will be undergone same testing procedure in this

study. Following figure describe the conceptual framework of this study.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of the study

26

3.2 Research design

In this study, cross-sectional research design was adopted (Baumgartner & Hensley,

2006). This study employed one time test upon purposive sample group design

(intermediate and novice adolescent badminton players) The independent variable were

the demographic factors (years of training) and dependant variable were sport skills and

problem solving measure by badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke)

and motor sequencing task.

A total number of 60 subjects (male) were tested on sport skill, and problem

solving. Two separate sessions were applied during data collection. In first session, all

subjects were tested on badminton stroke accuracy test adopted from Blomqvist (2000),

three selected test (serve stroke and smash stroke) were implemented. In second session,

all subjects were tested on motor sequencing task adopted from Vickers (1988) and two

set of slide (serve and smash) were implemented.

The analysis of the data was organized under two sections. The first section was

concerned with within group correlation for the sport skill and problem solving. The

second section was to compare between group comparison for the sport skill and problem

solving. The framework of this study design was illustrated as below:

27

Figure 3. Design of the study

28

3.2.1 Selection of the subjects

This study recruited a total number of 60 male adolescent badminton players with where

age in range of 13 to 15 years old through purposive sampling technique. According to

Miller (2006), the age of 6 to 10 years old subjects can appropriately to be tested on sport

skill due because in this age the subject able to translate efficiency and effectiveness of

learned skill to integrated the capacity of the sport skill.

There were two groups (novice and intermediate) were recruited in this study. For

intermediate group, 30 subjects were recruited from National backup squad program

which were jointly sponsored with National Sport Council (NSC) and Badminton

Association of Malaysia (BAM). Meanwhile for novice group, 30 subjects were recruited

from badminton academy within area of Kuala Lumpur. Exclusionary criteria included

any physical injuries or any unresolved musculoskeletal disorder that prohibited subjects

from sport participation. All subjects were fully recovered from any physical training for

at least 48 hours before test been conducted.

A randomized selection of the subjects was more desirable but it was not possible

in present study because these subjects were considered possess badminton skills and

experience minimum one years (novice) and maximum 7 years (intermediate) before this

study begin. The inclusion of less or more skills subject in the study would jeopardize the

test result by certainly increases the initial within group and between group differences in

term of sport skill and cognitive level.

29

3.2.2 Sample size

In this study, Sample size was calculated based upon the formula by Zamalia Mahmud

(2009) as showed below

From the total number of n = 50 intermediate badminton players population, at

least 12 subjects were required from the formula calculation in sample size. This same

goes on novice badminton players population that comprise of n = 60 players, at least 15

subjects were required. Therefore, total numbers of 30 intermediate subjects and 30

novice subjects was selected based on ranking from first rank to rank thirty within each

groups (novice and intermediate) were represent more than 0.7 in effect size when alpha

was set at p < 0.05 for two-tailed test as suggested by Kreamer and Thiermann (1987).

3.2.3 Threats to the validity

In this study, selection from different level of group (novice and intermediate) will affect

the threats to the validity such as homogeneity, maturation and history in the outcome

from this study. To overcome this matter, this study selected randomization (counter

balance) by dividing (n = 60) into three groups that consist of 20 subjects per group (ten

novice and ten intermediate) that has been adopted from Thomas, Nelson and Silverman

(2005).

30

3.3 Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted in 19th

July 2010 to validate the badminton stroke accuracy

test (serve stroke and smash stroke). This pilot study was conducted since there was no

local research reported the validity and reliability for each instrument. Motor sequencing

task also was validated through pilot study that was conducted in 22th

July 2010. The

researcher main aim of conducting this pilot study was to determine whether the

instruments were suitable for local population.

The content of this study comprise of sample, type of study source of data and the

procedure of the study and the pilot study results.

The objectives of the pilot study were:

i. To determine the reliability of the instruments used in this study using test-retest

correlation.

ii. To rehearse with the testing procedures and administrative problems encountered

with this study.

iii. To obtain information to improve testing procedure which it might facilitate

smooth and efficient.

iv. To obtain feedback from the subjects which it may lead to important keys of

improvement for main study.

31

A total subjects of eight (n = 8) adolescent badminton players age 13.75 ± 1.28

years old were recruited in this study. These subjects were taken during their attachment

training badminton using the National Sport Council facilities. During this study, they

were representing Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur badminton squad and have

maximum seven years of experience in badminton. The subjects for the pilot study did

not take part in main study.

32

3.3.1 Pilot study procedure

The pilot study was carried out at gymnasium 2, National Sport Council (NSC) using

test-retest procedure. One actual badminton court was set up according to Blomqvist

(2000) adopted stroke accuracy test. The National Sport Council administrative staff and

National backup coaches were informed of the project. The subjects were given their full

commitment and co-operation throughout the study.

The subject were been given brief explanations on the nature of the research

project. In stroke accuracy test (serve stroke and smash stroke), they introduced to expert

test operator personnel. The operator personnel demonstrated the proper way to perform

serve test and smash test. All subjects observed the demonstration before the test was

implemented. All subjects were given three trial attempts and 10 actual attempts to

perform on each test. Data was recorded base on the area of shuttle drop and total number

on each test was taken as score.

For the purpose of validating motor sequencing task, another study has been done

on 22th

July 2010. The researcher assembled all subjects in a room with minimal external;

distortion and good lighting. The subject had been demonstrated two different slides of

motor sequences by researcher the protocol of test. All subjects observed the

demonstration before the test was implemented. All subjects were given one time actual

attempt on each test. Data was recorded base on error been done and time recorded.

33

3.3.2 Assessing the validity and reliability of the instruments

This study using serve stroke and smash stroke to measure the stroke accuracy on

badminton players. Therefore, in order to assess the reliability of the instruments, a pilot

study was administered on 8 adolescent badminton players using test-retest procedure.

Then, Pearson’s Correlations coefficient was computed in each instrument. The results

were summarized as followed:

Table 1. Summary of reliability coefficient for sport skill instrument.

Instruments Correlation Coefficient (r)

Lowest Highest

Serve stroke .667 .822

Smash stroke .667 .764

The result indicates that all instrument had a strong correlation magnitude since

the correlation coefficient were above r = 0.65. Thus, from the result it can be concluded

that all test were reliable to measure the two variables in badminton stroke accuracy test.

34

Table 2 Summary of reliability coefficient for Motor sequencing task

Instruments Correlation

Coefficient (r)

Serve motion error

.714

Smash motion error

Serve motion time

.740

Smash motion time

The result indicated that all instrument were consistency since the Alpha’s

coefficient were r = 0.74.in both motion error (serve & smash). The correlation

coefficient in both motion time (serve & smash) was 0.74. Thus it can be concluded that

all test were reliable to measure the two variables in motor sequencing task.

35

3.4 Instrumentation

3.4.1 Badminton stroke accuracy

For the purpose of gathering data on current sport skill level on subjects, badminton

stroke accuracy was selected with two tests (serve stroke and smash stroke). This test was

adopted from Blomqvist (2000). This test was designed according to exact badminton

stroke execution and it measures the accuracy of badminton stroke.

For it reliability and validity, the badminton stroke accuracy has been used

repeatly in quite number of research (Blomqvist, 2000; Sakurai, 2000). Blomqvist (2000)

were administered these instrumentations on Finnish junior badminton players and

reported produce reliability coefficient value of r = 0.71 in smash and r = 0.84 in serve.

No validity and reliability value were reported locally. However, pilot test was tested by

researcher with reliability value of r = 0.82.

This test were administrated in an actual size badminton court where three courts

were used and each court was prepared as design (figure 4) For scoring areas, in

badminton serve test (Figure 4, area I), areas (radius 40, 80, 120, 160 cm) are pointed as 1

point for largest area, then 3, 5 and 10 for the smallest area, if the shuttle did not reach

these area, 0 were given. For badminton smash test (figure 4, area II) areas (radius 1.5,

2.0, 2.5 m) were pointed as 3 point for largest area, then 5 and 10 for the smallest area. In

all badminton stroke tests, 0 point will be given if the shuttle did not reach target area.

36

Each subject’s were allowed to perform two trials of practice shot and 10 test trials in

actual test.

Figure 4. Badminton design for serve stroke test and smash stroke test. Adopted from

Blomqvist (2000).

37

3.4.2 Motor Sequencing task

For the purpose of gathering data on current problem solving in subject, this study has

selected motor sequencing task as instrument (appendix 3 & 4). This test was designed to

measure subject problem solving ability using serial motion of picture.

For reliability and validity of this instrument, Motor sequencing task has been

used repeated in quite numbers of research (David, 1985; Vickers, 1988). Vickers (1988)

that were administered this test upon gymnastics subject in raging of age 13 to 16 years

old and reported produce reliability coefficient value of r = 0.74 in number of slide errors

and time recorded. No validity and reliability value were reported locally. However, pilot

test was tested by researcher which it produced reliability coefficient value of r = 0.72 in

number of slide errors and time recorded.

Two different sets of motion picture in sequence were prepared before this study

begun (appendix 2 & 3). Picture was obtain from two series of videos (serve and smash)

recorded using a digital video camera (Panasonic NV-JS180) that been place in distance

of ten meter from right segmental of performer. Raw video was edited using Siliconcoach

Pro version 7.0 to get a still image of 15 pictures in sequences and printed on a hand

bound paper in size of six centimeter times four centimeter (6cm x 4cm) each to make it

sturdy. Two sets of motion picture in each movement were printed, one set was in correct

order in sequences and another set sequence can be scattered. Using this instrumentation,

subject will be asked to rearrange the image accordingly to sequence as fast as possible

38

and as accurately as possible, an error was considered when any series of image out of

sequences. Each subject’s was allowed to perform single trials on each sequence picture

3.5 Procedures for actual study

The administrative of National Sport Council (NSC), Badminton Association of Malaysia

(BAM), and badminton academy has been informed on the researcher project. Discussion

with the coaches has been done prior to the procedure implementation. This study

involved national badminton backup players and badminton academy players. The

national badminton backup player poses not more than seven years of badminton playing

experience. Meanwhile for academy badminton players, they must those who have

engaged in formal badminton training with at least one year of badminton playing

experience. Both groups did not participate in any international level competition before

this study begun.

All subjects were randomly selected into three groups (counter balance) that

consist of 20 members per group. In order to ensure that useful and reliable data that has

been collected, certain procedure were strictly adhered to during the entire course of main

study. Upon receiving the information on the study, all subjects were asked to fill the

consent letter form. Each subject was explained on the requirement of this study and also

understands on the risk during testing. Finally, subjects were inform they may withdraw

from this study if they feel unwell and not agreed with this study requirements. In this

39

session, subjects were also handed with a data collection sheet that will be used during

actual testing.

3.6 Testing protocol

3.6.1 Badminton stroke accuracy test

All subjects were performing three badminton stroke accuracy tests to evaluate the

current sport skill. For the purpose of this testing procedure, researcher has recruited

three research assistances that were trained and reliable in implementing all testing

procedure and collecting data. Researcher also recruited three experience and reliable

badminton coaches to serve the role as shuttlecock setter to the desired trajectory shot

during smash test.

For performing serve stroke test, long serve test was used in this study in order to

measure subject serve skill. Subject was asked to stand at right baseline service court

facing opponent court, once signaled by tester, subject’s require to hit a high long serve

in to scoring areas near the side and left baseline. (figure 4, area I). Subject only allowed

performing two trials of practice shot and ten test trials in actual test. The score was taken

base on where did the shuttle drop in target area. Mean score was taken from ten test trial

score.

40

Smash test were used in this study for measure subject shuttle smash accuracy.

Subject were asked to stand in the left receiver box 0.5 meters from baseline and perform

a smash from assistance serve (serving from opponent left half court), shuttlecock travel

equivalent to subject upper reach and subject must hit back the shuttle in to scoring area

near side right half court. (figure 4, area II). Subject only allowed performing two trials of

practice shot and ten test trials in actual test. The score was taken base on where did the

shuttle drop in target area. Mean score was taken from ten test trial score.

3.6.2 Motor sequencing task

All subjects will perform two motor sequencing tasks to evaluate the current knowledge

structure. For the purpose of this testing procedure, researcher has recruited three

research assistances that were trained and reliable in implementing all testing procedure

and collecting data.

In administered this testing, subject were ask to look the actual motion picture in

correct sequence for two minutes. After time ended, subject was asked to close their eyes,

upon signal by tester, subject opened their eyes and started to reconstruct each sequence

as quickly and as accurately as possible. Time in seconds was recorded with digital timer.

Data were collected base on number of error slides and time recorded. Two different re-

sequencing tests were tested on subject with same testing procedure.

41

3.7 Statistical analysis

Two sets of data were collected from the study:

i.The data which consisted badminton strokes accuracy test (serve stroke and smash

stroke) and problem solving (motor sequencing task) among novice and intermediate

badminton player.

ii.The data which consisted how different level of badminton player (novice and

intermediate) in consisted badminton strokes accuracy test (serve stroke and smash

stroke) and problem solving (motor sequencing task)

All data collected were analyzed using the analyzed using statistical package for social

science (version 17.0) for Microsoft Windows®. The alpha level was set at p ≤ 0.05 for

statistical significance. For pilot study, Pearson correlation coefficient was use to

establish the reliability of the instruments.

Descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation were used to report the

demographic data of the study Pearson correlation coefficient was set at two-tailed was

used to establish the correlation between variable within group and between groups in

badminton stroke accuracy and motor sequencing task.

The independent sample t-test was performed to assess the statistical significant in

the variable to compare the level of differences between intermediate and novice groups

in badminton stroke accuracy and motor sequencing task.

42

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.0 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of sport skill and problem

solving among intermediate and novice Malaysia badminton players. This study also

investigates the differences of sport skill and problem solving between intermediate and

novice badminton players. All analyses were carried out using Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0. The confidence level was set at p ≤ 0.05(2-tailed).

The result of the analysis of the data and the interpretation were organized into five major

categories as follows:

i. Descriptive analysis for demographic data of subjects.

ii. Correlation of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy for:

a. Novice badminton players.

b. Intermediate badminton players.

iii. Correlation for mean score in motor sequencing task for :

a. Novice badminton players


iv. Relationship for mean score in sport skill and problem solving for:

a. Novice badminton players.


43

Hypotheses testing

i. There was no significant correlation in mean score of serve stroke and smash

stroke between novice and intermediate badminton players.

ii. There was no significant correlation in mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

and problem solving between novice and intermediate badminton players.

iii. There was no significant difference in mean score of serve stroke and smash

stroke between novice and intermediate badminton players.

iv. There was no significant difference in mean score of problem solving between


44

4.1 Demographic data of the subjects

As shown in table 3, there was a total number of 60 subjects (50% novice, 50%

intermediate) were participated in this study. Majority age of subjects in this study was

13 years old (46.7%), meanwhile age 14 years old were 24.4% and age 15 years old were

11.1%. All subjects in this study were still studying in lower secondary school (form 1 to

form 3).

In this study, 28 novice subjects (31.1%) poses with 1 year of formal training

experiences, the rest 2 novice subjects (2.2%) poses 2 years of formal training

experience. For intermediate subjects, 5 subjects (17.8%) poses 5 years of formal

training, 9 subjects (10%) poses 6 years of formal training and 5 subjects (5.6%) poses 7

years of formal training.

Table 3 Demographic data of subjects (novice & intermediate badminton players)

Frequency Percentage

Group

Novice 30 50

Intermediate 30 50

Age

13 28 31.1

14 22 24.4

15 10 11.1

Years of formal training

1 28 31.1

2 2 2.2

5 16 17.8

6 9 10

7 5 5.6

45

4.2 Correlations of mean score in serve stroke and smash stroke within novice

and intermediate badminton players.

Serve stroke and smash stroke were measured using half court badminton design

badminton stroke accuracy as been adopted from Blomqvist (2000). Pearson correlation

analysis was applied objectively to identify the correlation between each badminton

strokes within group (novice/intermediate) that represent the current subjects sport skill

ability.

4.2.1 Correlation of mean score in serve stroke and smash stroke within novice

badminton players

Table 4 present the correlation analysis within novice badminton players (n =30) in serve

stroke and smash stroke. From the analysis, it showed that there was no significant

correlation in serve (r = 0.036, p > 0.05) and no significant correlation in smash (r = -

0.041, p > 0.831).

Table 4. Summary of the correlation between mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) within novice badminton players.

Serve stroke

n = 30

Smash stroke

n = 30

Pearson correlation ( r ) .036 -.041

Sig. (2-tailed) .850 .831

46

Therefore, this statistical result can be described that there were no correlation

between mean score in serve stroke and smash stroke within novice badminton players.

4.2.2 Correlation of mean score in serve stroke and smash stroke within intermediate

badminton players.

Table 5 present the correlation analysis within intermediate badminton players (n =30) in

serve stroke and smash stroke. From the analysis, it showed that there were moderate

correlation in serve (r = 0.542, p < 0.02) and moderate correlation in smash (r = 0.511, p

< 0.004).

Table 5.Summary of the correlation between mean score of badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) within intermediate badminton players

Serve stroke

n = 30

Smash stroke

n = 30

Pearson correlation ( r ) .542** .511**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .004

*P value < 0.05 (2- tailed)

**P value < 0.01 (2 - tailed)

Therefore, this statistical result can be describe that, averagely there have

moderate correlation between mean score in serve stroke and smash stroke within


47

4.3 Correlation of mean score in problem solving within novice and intermediate

badminton players.

There were two motor sequence images (serve and smash) in the problem solving test

that has been measured namely motor sequencing task in serving and motor sequencing

task in smashing. All tests were measured using series of motor in sequence picture has

been adopted from Vickers (1988). Pearson correlation analysis was applied objectively

were to identify the correlation between each motor sequencing task within group

(novice/intermediate) that represent the current problem solving ability among subjects.

4.3.1 Correlation of mean score in motor sequencing task within novice badminton

players

Table 6 present the correlation analysis within novice badminton players (n =30) in two

different motor sequencing tasks in error recorded (MST1, MST2) and time recorded

(MSTime1, MSTime2). From the analysis in error recorded, it showed that low

correlation in MST1 (r = 0.456, p < 0.011), low correlation also showed in MST2

(r = 0.456, p < 0.011). Meanwhile in time recorded for both MSTime1 and MSTime2,

low correlation was showed in MSTime1 (r = 0.372, p < 0.043), low correlation also

showed in MSTime2 (r = 0.392, p < 0.032).

48

Table 6 Summary of the correlation between mean score in motor sequencing task

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within novice badminton players.

MST1

n = 30

MST2

n = 30

MSTime1

n = 30

MSTime2

n = 30

Pearson correlation ( r ) .456* .456* .372* .392*

Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .011 .043 .032


Note:

MST1 = Motor sequencing task (serve)

MST2 = Motor sequencing task (smash)

MSTime1 = Motor sequencing task (time recorded for MST1)


Therefore, this statistical result showed that there was a very low correlation of

mean score in problems solving ability (motor sequencing task) within novice badminton

players.

4.3.2 Correlation of mean score in motor sequencing task within intermediate

badminton players

Table 7 present the correlation analysis within intermediate badminton players (n =30) in

two different motor sequencing tasks in error recorded (MST1, MST2) and time recorded

(MSTime1, MSTime2). From the analysis in error recorded, it showed high correlation in

MST1 (r = 0.704, p < 0.000), high correlation also showed in MST2 (r = 0.704, p <

0.000) Meanwhile in time recorded for both MSTime1 and MSTime2, low correlation

was showed in MSTime1 (r = 0.44, p < 0.15), low correlation also was showed in

MSTime2 (r = 0.44, p < 0.15).

49

Table 7. Summary of the correlation between mean score in motor sequencing task

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within intermediate badminton players.

MST1

n = 30

MST2

n = 30

MSTime1

n = 30

MSTime2

n = 30

Pearson correlation .704** .704** .440* .440*

Sig. (2-tailed) .0001 .0001 .015 .015



Note:





Therefore, this statistical result showed that there was moderate correlation of

mean score in problems solving ability (motor sequencing task) within intermediate

badminton players.

50

4.4 Correlation of mean score in sport skill and problem solving for novice and


Table 8 and table 9 show the correlation of mean score in sport skill (badminton stroke

accuracy) and problem solving (motor sequencing task) for whole subjects (intermediate

and novice). The intermediate group consist of 30 subjects, meanwhile novice group

consist of 30 subjects. Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis was applied objectively

to identify the correlation of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy and motor

sequencing task within group (intermediate and novice).

4.4.1 Correlation of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash

stroke) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within

novice badminton players.

Table 8 present the correlation analysis within novice badminton players (n =30) of mean

score for badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor

sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2). From the result, low correlation

of mean score were showed between badminton stroke accuracy and motor sequencing

task with MST1 (r = 0.456, p < 0.011), MST2 (r = 0.456, p < 0.011), MSTime1

(r = 0.372, p < 0.43) and MSTime2 (r = 0.372, p < 0.43). But in badminton stroke

accuracy, no correlation in mean score were showed either in serve (r = 0.058, p > 0.760)

and smash (r = 0.168, p > 0.376).

51

Table 8. Summary of the correlation between mean score in badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1,

MSTime2) within novice badminton players.

Serve

stroke

n = 30

Smash

stroke

n = 30

MST1

n = 30

MST2

n = 30

MSTime1

n = 30

MSTime2

n = 30

Pearson correlation

( r ) .058 .168 .456* .456* .372* .372*

Sig. (2-tailed) .760 .376 .011 .011 .043 .043


Note:





Therefore, from the statistical analysis result showed that weak correlations in

mean score for badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) and motor

sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) were found within novice

badminton players.

52

4.4.2 Correlation of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash

stroke) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) within


Table 9 present the correlation analysis within intermediate badminton players (n =30) of

mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash) stroke and motor

sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2). From the result, high correlation

of mean score were showed between badminton stroke accuracy and motor sequencing

task with MST1 (r = 0.704, p < 0.001), MST2 (r = 0.704, p < 0.001), low correlation of

mean score were showed in MSTime1 (r = 0.440, p < 0.015) and MSTime2 (r = 0.440,

p < 0.015). From the result also, moderate correlation of mean score in serve (r = -0.532,

p < 0.002), and moderate correlation of mean score in smash (r = 0.542, p < 0.002).

Table 9 Summary of the correlation between mean score in badminton stroke accuracy

(serve and smash) and motor sequencing task (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2)

within intermediate badminton players.

Serve

stroke

n = 30

Smash

stroke

n = 30

MST1

n = 30

MST2

n = 30

MSTime1

n = 30

MSTime2

n = 30

Pearson

correlation ( r ) -.532** .542** .704** .704** .440* .440*

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .002 .0001 .0001 .015 .015



Note:





53

Therefore, from the statistical analysis result showed that moderate correlations of

mean score were found between badminton stroke accuracy and motor sequencing task

within intermediate badminton players.

4.5 Data assumptions

In order to implement the hypotheses testing in this study, data assumptions were made

objectively to clarify item as following:

i. Data was normally distributed using interval ratio scale.

ii. Homogeneity testing for subjects distributions were done using Levine test and it

showed significant differences at Alpha was set at p < 0.05.

iii. Variance equal was assume

54

4.6 Hypotheses testing

The relationship of sport skill and problem solving among novice and intermediate

badminton players were determined using mean score comparison to test the hypotheses.

Hypotheses testing 1

There was no significant correlation in mean score of serve stroke and smash stroke

between novice and intermediate badminton players.

As shown in table 10, there was high correlation in mean score for serve stroke and

smash stroke between novice and intermediate badminton players in all tests (p <

0.0001). For serve stroke test, high correlation of r = 0.963, p < 0.0001 were showed.

Meanwhile in smash stroke test, it also showed high correlation of r = 0 .957, p < 0.0001.

Table 10. Summary of the correlation in mean score of serve stroke and smash stroke


Serve stroke

n = 60

Smash stroke

n = 60

Pearson correlation ( r ) .963** .957**

Sig. (2-tailed) .0001 .0001


55

Figure 5. Liner correlation graph of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve

stroke and smash stroke) between novice and intermediate badminton players.

4.6.1 Summary of hypotheses testing 1

The statistics result can indicated that there were liner correlations in the mean of test

score between different types of badminton strokes (serve stroke and smash stroke)

among novice and intermediate badminton players (figure 5). Hence, the null hypotheses

was rejected and it can be concluded that there were significant correlation in the mean of

test score between different types of badminton stroke for novice and intermediate

badminton players. But in term of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke

and smash stroke), intermediate badminton player score higher than novice which it

strongly indicated that intermediate have better sport skill than novice.

56

Hypotheses testing 2

There was no significant correlation in mean score of badminton stroke accuracy and

problem solving between novice and intermediate badminton players.

As shown in table 11, there was high correlation in badminton stroke accuracy (serve

stroke and smash stroke) and problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTIME1, MSTIME2)

between novice and intermediate badminton players with correlation coefficient of

r = -0.884, p < 0.0001 (lowest) to r = 0.998, p < 0.0001 (highest).

Table 11. Summary of the correlation between mean score in badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke) and problem solving (MST1,MST2, MSTIME1,

MSTIME2) in novice and intermediate badminton players.

Serve

stroke

n = 60

Smash

stroke

n = 60

MST1

n = 60

MST2

n = 60

MSTime1

n = 60

MSTime2

n = 60

Pearson

correlation ( r )

-.981** .963** -.884** -.859** -.983** .998**

Sig. (2-tailed) .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001


Note:





57

Figure 6. Liner correlation graph of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve

stroke and smash stroke) with problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2)


4.6.2 Summary of hypotheses 2

The statistics result can indicated that there were liner correlations in the mean of test

score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) and problem solving

(MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice and intermediate badminton

players (figure 6). Hence, the null hypotheses were rejected and it can be concluded that

there were significant correlation in badminton stroke accuracy and problem solving in

badminton players. But in term of mean score intermediate badminton player score

higher than novice in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) which it

strongly indicated that intermediate have better sport skill than novice. Meanwhile in

mean score of problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2), intermediate do

58

perform less error in MST1 and MST2 than novice. This same goes on MSTime1 and

MSTime2, intermediate do perform less time in completion of sequence than novice.

Hypotheses 3

There was no significant difference in mean score of serve stroke and smash stroke


As shown in table 12, the independent sample t-test result for badminton stroke accuracy

serve and smash, there was a significant differences between intermediate and novice

with t (51) = -39.60, p < 0.0001, meanwhile in smash test, it also showed significant

differences between intermediate and novice with t (58) = -31.24, p <0.0001).

Table 12. Summary of the independent sample t-test for the differences between mean

score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) between novice and


Test Group n mean(x) sd(σ) df t-value p-value

Serve Novice 30 1.47 .162

51 -39.60 .0001 Intermediate 30 3.52 .232

Smash Novice 30 3.45 .165

58 -31.24 .0001 Intermediate 30 6.28 .467

59

Figure 7. Differences of mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and

smash stroke) between novice and intermediate badminton players.


The independent sample t- test results was showed significance differences of mean score

for serve and smash between novice and intermediate badminton players. Hence, the null

hypothesis was rejected and it can be concluded that there were significant differences

between novice and intermediate group in badminton stroke accuracy. The differences of

mean score in badminton stroke accuracy (serve stroke and smash stroke) can be

concluded that intermediate was better than novice in sport skills that has been shown in

figure 7.

60

Hypotheses 4

There was no significant difference in mean score of problem solving between novice and


As shown in table 13, the independent sample t-test result for error in motor sequencing

task in MST1 (serve), there was a significant differences between intermediate and

novice in mean score with t (58) = 14.48, p < 0.0001. The same significance differences

also was showed in MST2 (smash) between intermediate and novice with t (58) = 12.04,

p < 0.0001.

Table 13. Summary of the independent sample t-test of the differences between mean

score in problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice and


Test Group n mean(x) sd(σ) df t-value p-value

MST1 Novice 30 7.73 .583

58 14.48 .0001 Intermediate 30 4.7 .988

MST2 Novice 30 7.7 .596

58 12.04 .0001 Intermediate 30 5.17 .986

MSTime1 Novice 30 6.20 .048

58 155.01 .0001 Intermediate 30 3.21 .093

MSTime2 Novice 30 6.20 .046

58 121.31 .0001 Intermediate 30 3.26 .124

Note:





61

In time recorded in motor sequencing task in MSTime1 (serve). Significance

different was showed between intermediate and novice group with t (58) = 155.01,

p < 0.0001. Meanwhile in MSTime2 (smash), it also showed significance different

between intermediate and novice with t (58) = 121.31, p < 0.0001).

Figure 8. Differences of mean score in problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1,

MSTime2) between novice and intermediate badminton players.

62


From the independent sample t- test results, it showed significance differences for all

tests in problem solving (MST1, MST2, MSTime1, MSTime2) between novice and

intermediate badminton players (figure 8). Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected and it

can be concluded that there were significant differences between novice and intermediate

group in neither motor sequencing task neither in error performed nor time recorded.

From the statistical result, it can be concluded that intermediate were better than novice

in problem solving ability with performing less error in MST1 and MST2. In time

recorded intermediate able to solve a problem in less time than novice in MSTime1 and

MSTime2.

63

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Discussions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of sport skill and problem

solving among novice and intermediate Malaysian badminton players. This study also

determines the comparison between novice and intermediate group in both sport skill and

problem solving. There were numerous researches in this area which examine the sport

skill level within novice, intermediate and expert performer in determination of

performance. (Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000; David, Lees, & Burwitz, 2000; Hastie,

Sinelnikov, & Guarino, 2009; Edwards, Lindsay, & Waterhouse, 2005; Blomqvist, 2000).

Besides that, problem solving ability between different level of group (novice,

intermediate, expert) also been implemented by previous studies in measuring the

capability of performer in solving a problem task. (Villa et. al, 2007; Schack, 2003;

Kioumortzoglou, 2000; Yarrow, Brown, & Krakauer, 2009; Raadt, Toleman, & Watson,

2004; Cote & Baker, 2007; Schimidt & Wrisberg, 2000).

The correlation of badminton stroke accuracy showed different result in novice

badminton player, and intermediate badminton players. For novice badminton player, the

result showed that no correlation was found within each badminton strokes (serve stroke

and smash stroke). The correlation of mean score for serve stroke (r = 0.036) and smash

stroke (r = - 0.041) proved that no correlation of mean score was found within the novice

64

badminton players. Meanwhile in intermediate badminton players, the result showed that

moderate correlation was found within strokes (serve and smash). The correlation of

mean score for serve stroke (r = 0.542) and smash stroke (r = 0.511) proved that

averagely, intermediate badminton players was better correlation in mean score (serve m

= 3.983 sd = 0.5414; smash m = 6.133 sd = 0.3918) in each stroke to be compared to

novice badminton players mean score (serve m = 1.470 sd = 0.162; smash m = 3.453

sd = 0.1655).

The different correlation in sport skill (badminton stroke accuracy) between

different level of group (novice and intermediate) has been reported and supported by

many studies ( Sakurai & Ohtsuki, 2000; Blomqvist, 2000; Cote & Baker, 2007; Villa et.

al, 2007; Reid, Crespo, Lay, & Berry, 2006.). These studies investigated the correlation

of each attempt of skill in measuring the different level of performance between different

levels of groups (novice, intermediate, expert). Sakurai and Ohtsuki (2000) did a study on

five skilled badminton players and five unskilled badminton players in accuracy of 30

strokes in selected badminton strokes. From the study, it showed that skilled badminton

players were constant in stroke accuracy compared to unskilled badminton players.

Similar result also was shown in Blomqvist (2000); she investigated the correlation of

sport skill between different level of badminton players (expert and novice). Yet, the

result also showed that expert badminton players were high correlation in different types

of badminton strokes to be compared to novice badminton players. These results showed

similar result with this study that intermediate badminton players were most consistence

in each badminton stroke executions.

65

The finding can be justified that intermediate badminton players was better

correlation in each badminton strokes due to the experience that the intermediate was

posses during training. In this study, intermediate badminton players engage averagely

more than five years in badminton experience rather than novice badminton players that

only less than two years of experience. Cote, Baker and Abernethy (2007) indicated that

time factor and training factor was the main concern in creating expertise in sport skill.

When a player engaged in repetitious hour of sport skill training for years, the player

gained experience and the skill become smoother and can be maintain at certain level. In

this study, intermediate badminton players were moderate mean score in correlation

compared to novice badminton players in badminton strokes accuracy explained the

relationship of years of training in developing and refurnishing of sport skill.

The correlation of problem solving within novice badminton players, intermediate

badminton players showed correlation in mean score in each group. Novice badminton

players showed low correlation in error recorded (MST1 r = 0.456, MST2 r = 0.456) and

time recorded (MSTime1 r = 372, MSTime2 r = 0.392). Meanwhile for intermediate

players, high correlation was found in error recorded (MST1 r = 0.704, MST2 r = 0.704)

but low correlation it time recorded (MSTime1 r = 0.440, MSTime2 r = 0.440). Even

though the result showed there were correlation of problem solving within the novice and

intermediate badminton players, but the mean score for intermediate badminton players

(MST1 m = 4.57 sd = 0.935. MST2 m = 4.60 sd =1.037. MSTime1 = 3.215 sd = 0.093.

MSTime2 m = 3.57 sd = 0.124) proved that were better than novice badminton players

66

(MST1 m = 7.73 sd = 0.583. MST2 m = 7.70 sd =0.596. MSTime1 = 6.201 sd = 0.048.

MSTime2 m = 6.204 sd = 0.046) in problem solving.

The finding of the correlation of mean score in problem solving within group has

been reported and supported by numerous of studies (Vickers, 1988; Villa et. al, 2007;

Andrejkovic, 2009; Blomqvist, 2000; Macquet, 2009; Burns, Lee, & Vickers, 2006;

Nielson & McPherson, 2001). These studies investigated the correlation different

problem solving in measuring the level of performance between different levels of group

(novice, intermediate, expert). Vickers (1988) did the problem solving studies toward

three groups of gymnast (novice, intermediate, expert) in order to investigate the problem

solving abilities for different group level. From his study, it founded that there have linear

correlations in error perform and time recorded between different levels of gymnast, but

he stated that the more highly skilled gymnast recorded faster time and commit fewer

error in motor sequencing task. Kioumortzoglou et. al, (2000) also done the same study

as Vickers (1988) in problem solving toward 30 volleyball players in different level

(novice and expert). From his study, similar result was shown as Vickers (1988) that it

have linear correlation in mean score on problem solving within group, but expert was

more correct response in slides and more faster than novice group.

The correlation can be justified with study from Abernethy, Thomas and Thomas

(1993) in their hypothetical changes across age in the relative importance of knowledge,

experience and skill in high strategy tasks (appendix 4). They stated that during

childhood to adolescent, knowledge were needed most in sport performance. During this

67

period, a player needs to have the fundamental knowledge of certain sport skill for

example basic badminton strokes ability such as serving and smashing. But in order to

become superior in knowledge and sport skill, hours and years of training were required

for the player to master the knowledge. From this explanation, it justified with the finding

of this study. Novice badminton players also able to learn and hold the information in

their brain on the badminton knowledge, but the time factor and training factor on the

sport limited the novice badminton players to perform as same level as intermediate

badminton players in problem solving ability. In other hand, intermediate badminton

players were better in problem solving with capable to perform less error and less time to

be compared with novice badminton player. Intermediate can solve the problem by

applying strategies resulting from past experience and have advantages in recalling the

pattern of recognition on the motor sequencing task as been reported by previous studies

(Adrejkovic, 2009; McPherson, 2001; Vickers, 1988; Kioumortzoglou et. al,2000).

The correlation of sport skill and problem solving in novice badminton player and

intermediate badminton player showed different level of correlation. For novice

badminton player, low correlation in sport skill with problem solving was found in novice

badminton players (serve = 0.058, smash = 0.168, MST1 = 0.456, MST2 = 0.456,

MSTime1 = 0.372, MSTime2 = 0.392). Meanwhile in intermediate badminton player,

sport skill with problem solving were found moderate correlation with serve = -0.532,

smash = 0.542, MST1 = 0.704 MST2 = 0.704, MSTime1 = 0.440, MSTime2 = 0.440.

Hence from the statistical result, it proved that intermediate badminton player were better

relationship in sport skill and problem solving compared to novice badminton player.

68

The findings of the correlation of sport skill and problem solving within the group

has been reported and supported by numbers of studies, (Blomqvist, 2000; Schack, 2003;

Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000). These studies did an investigated the correlation of

sport skill and problem solving in level of performance within different level of

performer (novice, intermediate and expert). Blomqvist (2000) was done an investigation

on the correlation of sport skill and problem solving within novice and expert badminton

players. In her study, it showed that novice does have correlation in problem solving, yet

in sport skill execution, no correlation were found. In other hand, expert badminton

player do show high correlation on sport skill and problem solving.

The relation on this study finding with previous study finding (Blomqvist, 2000),

low correlation of sport skill and problem solving in novice badminton player can be

justified that novice badminton player has only hold the basic knowledge in particular

sport skill, yet they still immature in performing as desired sport skill due to less number

in years of training. In this study, novice badminton player only posses not more than two

years of badminton experience and this factor limited the sport skill execution in

comparing the intermediate badminton player that poses more than seven years of

badminton experience. In other hand, intermediate badminton player showed moderate

correlation between sport skill and problem solving in this study, this can be justified that

intermediate badminton player able to derived their knowledge from past experience to

execute more accurate and powerful badminton strokes. These findings were supported

by Hastie, Sinelkov and Guarino (2009). They indicated that a higher skilled player

69

(intermediate to expert) has sufficient amount of sport skill and badminton knowledge to

execute an appropriate action and strategies according to game situation. This explains

how the higher skill players (intermediate to expert) able to used the correlation of

knowledge in their memory and transmit it into action better performance than novice

badminton player.

The differences of sport skill and problem solving between novice and

intermediate badminton players showed significant differences in both variables (sport

skill and problem solving). In sport skill, badminton stroke accuracy test showed

significant differences between novice badminton player and intermediate badminton

player with t (51) = -39.60 in serve, t (58) = -42.76 and t (58) = -31.24 in smash.

Meanwhile in problem solving, significance different also was showed in all motor

sequencing task. In error recorded, MST1 showed significant differences with t (58) =

14.48. The MST1 result was similar in MST2 with t (58) = 12.04.In time recorded,

MSTime1 showed significant different with t (58) = 155.01. MSTime2 also showed

significant different with t (58) = 121.31.Thus, from the statistical result it proved that

intermediate badminton player were better than novice badminton player in sport skill

and problem solving ability.

The finding on the differences of sport skill and problem solving between novice

and intermediate badminton players has been reported and supported by numerous of

studies (Vickers, 1988. Villa et. al, 2007; Schack, 2003; Kioumortzoglou, 2000; Sakurai

& Othsuki, 2000). These studies have investigated the differences of sport skill and

70

problem solving between different level of group (novice, intermediate, expert). Schack

(2003) has done an investigation on sport skill and problem solving in novice and expert

sailing surfer. In his study, it showed that there were significant difference between

expert and novice. Villa et. al, (2007) also investigated similar study on the differences of

sport skill and problem solving in novice and expert tennis player. From their study, it

also showed that expert tennis player were more superior compare to novice tennis player

in tennis execution and selection of executions.

This study finding can be justified that novice badminton player in this study has

hold a little amount of badminton skill due to the early years of badminton training

(below two years), but the maturity of sport skill ability limited the novice badminton

player to perform well in badminton stroke accuracy This finding has been supported by

Adrejkovic (2009) that was study the real task of problem solving toward ice hockey

players. He indicated that the maturity level (below two years) limited the ice hockey

player to perform well in technical aspect such as dribbling and passing. In other hand,

intermediate players were better than novice in sport skill and problem solving aspect.

Previous studies (Adrejkovic, 2009; Villa et. al, 2007; Schack, 2003; McPhesrson, 2001)

indicated that higher skilled players (intermediate and expert) was better result in

execution of sport skills due to their maturity on sport skill that been trained for more

than two years (Adrejkovic, 2009) make them able to perform better technical sport skill

requirement such as smashing, serving in badminton playing. Higher level player

(intermediate to expert) also showed a consistence result in each trial on their sport skill

execution (Yarrow, Brown, & Krakuer, 2009). Beside technical aspect, intermediate

71

badminton players also stored the strong fundamental in sport skill in their brain as been

reported by Blomqvist, Luthanen, Laakso and Keskinen (2000). They indicated that

higher skilled players able to determine the changes of game play by taking earlier

recognition to solve tactical problem, higher skill players also utilize their past experience

and derive the player to make an appropriate solution in time constraint situation. Thus,

with the combination of maturity in sport skill and better in problem solving, intermediate

badminton player tend to be better in sport performance compared to novice badminton

player.

72

5.1 Conclusion of study

This study was investigate the correlation and comparison of differences on sport skill

and problem solving among intermediate and novice badminton player using badminton

stroke accuracy (Blomqvist, 2000) and motor sequencing task (1988). From the findings,

it can be concluded that intermediate badminton player possessed moderate correlation

between sport skill and problem solving compared to novice badminton player that only

poses low correlation in sport skill and problem solving. This study also found that

intermediate badminton players were better in sport skill and problem solving

performance than novice badminton players.

These findings were supported by numerous studies (Vickers, 1988; Villa et. al,

2007; Schack, 2003; Kioumortzoglou, 2000; Sakurai & Othsuki, 2000; McPherson, 2001;

Yarrow, Brown, & Krakuer, 2009; Hastie, Sinelkov, & Guarino, 2009; Schack, 2003;

Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000; Kioumortzoglou et. al,2000; Macquet, 2009; Burns,

Lee, & Vickers, 2006; Nielson & McPherson, 2001). These studies also indicated similar

findings as this study that intermediate badminton players has better correlation in sport

skill and problem solving ability than novice badminton players. Intermediate badminton

player performance also showed significant difference in all sport skill and problem

solving test compared to novice badminton players.

The moderate correlation in intermediate badminton player compared to novice

badminton player that only have low correlation in sport skill and problem solving can be

73

conclude with several factors. The primary factor was the level of sport exposure affected

the level of sport skill maturity in novice badminton players during performing

badminton stroke accuracy. But in term of knowledge, novice badminton player hold

basic tactical knowledge by posses little amount of badminton knowledge. This finding

can be explain by using the hypothetical changes across age in the relative importance of

knowledge, experience and skill in high strategy tasks by Abernethy, Thomas and

Thomas (1993). The second factor was novice badminton cannot execute the knowledge

into sport skill action due to immature level of sport skill ability. This explain why novice

badminton players was no correlation within badminton stroke accuracy (serve and

smash) compared to intermediate badminton players.

Significant differences of sport skill and problem solving between novice and

intermediate badminton player also showed in this study. The finding showed that

intermediate badminton player was better execution in each sport skill test (badminton

stroke accuracy) and problem solving (motor sequencing task) compared to novice

badminton players. Several factors can be used to justified this matter; mainly

intermediate badminton players able to perform better in sport skill due to years of

practice (more than two years) make their sport skill better in precision and more

powerful strokes. Intermediate badminton players also able to use the problem solving

ability in recognition of pattern and formulate better response for current situation

compared to novice badminton players.

74

Hence, it was proven from the finding of this study that intermediate badminton

was better than novice badminton players on sport skill and problem solving either in

term of correlation or differences. Therefore, from the findings, several suggestion and

recommendation raised from this study in order to seek better understanding for

intermediate badminton players for future study consideration.

75

5.2 Recommendations for future study

In this study, several issues raised during determine the correlation and differences of

sport skill and problem solving among different level of badminton players. Following

recommendation can be put for future study consideration:

i. This study only involve cross sectional experiment design that only gain limited

information in intermediate and novice badminton players ability in sport skill

and problem solving. Therefore it was suggested that in future study; intervention

could be included in order to investigate the changes of sport skill level and

problem solving level between different groups.

ii. This study only using field test as instrumentation in determine the sport skill

level and problem solving level. Even field test was accepted in this test, but it

may vary in term of tester ability in implementation and conducting the test. In

future study, it was suggested laboratory test protocol could be included in order

to measure exact level of data.

iii. This study only using motor sequencing task in obtaining the subjects problem

solving ability, but the result may be lack of actual problem solving ability.

Therefore it was suggested in future study, questionnaire could be used in order to

investigate the subject problem solving ability.

76

iv. This study only using intermediate badminton player and novice badminton

player as subject. It was suggested in future study, expert group could be included

as subject in order to get more finding in comparing between different groups.

77

REFERENCES

Abernethy, B., & Russell, D.G. (1987). Expert-novice differences in an applied selective

attention task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 326-345.

Abernethy, B., Thomas, K.T., & Thomas, J.R. (1993). Strategies for improving

understanding of motor expertise (or mistakes we have made and things we have

learned). In Starkes, J.L. & Allard, F., (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise.

Amsterdam: Elsevier, 317-356.

Adrejkovic, I. (2009). Relation of solving 2 on 2 game situation during matches and

within training sessions in ice-hockey u 18 category. Journal of Sport Science, 2,

20-26.

Baumgartner, T.A. & Hensley, L. D. (2006). Conducting and reading research in health

and human performance. New York , McGraw-Hill.

Beilock, S.L. (2008). Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language.

Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of

America.105, 13269-13273.

Blomqvist, M. (2000). Game understanding and game performance in badminton:

Development and validation of assessment instrumentation and their application to

games teaching and coaching. unpublished dissertation, University of Jyvaskyla,

Finland.

Breslin, G., Hodges, N. J., Kennedy, R., Hanlon, & M., William, A. M. (2009). An

especial skill: support for a learned parameters Hypothesis Acta Psychologica, 134,

55-60.

Burns, N.R., Lee, M.D., & Vickers, D. (2006). Are individual Differences in performance

on perceptual and cognitive optimization problems determined by general

intelligence? The Journal of Problem Solving, 1, 5- 17.

Colcombe, S.,& Kramer, A.F. (2003). Fitness effect on the cognitive function of older

adult: A meta analytic study. American Psychology Society, 14, 125-130.

Cote, J., Baker J., & Abernethy, B.(2007). Practice and play in the development of sport

expertise. Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd

ed.). Hoboken : Wiley.

David, K.S. (1985). Motor sequencing strategies in school aged children. Journal of

Physical Therapy, 65, 883-889.

78

Davids, K., & Burwitz, L. (1993). Cognitive knowledge and soccer performance.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 579-593.

Davids, K.,Lees, A., & Burwitz, L.(2000). Understanding and measuring coordination

and control in kicking skills in soccer: Implications for talent identification and skill

acquisition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 703-714.

DeGroot, A.D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton. (Original work

publish in 1946).

Edwards, B.J., Lindsay, K., & Waterhouse, J. (2005). Effect of time of day on the

accuracy and consistency of the badminton serve. Journal of Ergonomics, 48,

1488-1498.

Eccles, D.W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of

expert: A social cognitive conceptual of team coordination and communication in

sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 152-169.

Ericsson, K., & Ward, P. (2007). Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance

of experts in the laboratory. Association for Psychological Science, 16, 346-349.

Feng, Y., Zhou, C.L., Zhang, J.C., & Tian, M. L. (2009). Neural mechanisms of intuitive

decision making predominace of high level fencing athletes. Journal of Medical

and Biological Engineering, 30, 47-56.

Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human performance. Belmornt, CA: Books-Cole.

French, K., & Nevett, M. (1993). The development of expertise in youth sports. In

Starkes, J.L. & Allard, F., (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise. Amsterdam:

Elsevier, 255-270.

Glazier, P., & Davids, K. (2009). Optimization of performance in top-level athlete: An

action focused coping approach. International Journal of Sports Science and

Coaching, 4, 59-62.

Hastie, P.A., Sinelkov, O.A., & Guarino, A.J. (2009). The development of skill and

tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European Journal of Sport

Science, 9, 133 – 140.

Jowett, S. (2003). When the ‘honeymoon’ is over: a case study of a coach-athlete dyad in

crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444-460.

Kioumourtzoglou, E., Michalopoulou, M., Tzetzis, G., & Kourtessis, T. (2000). Ability

profile of elite volleyball player. Perceptual &Motor Skill, 90, 757-770.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/118603761-77707526/content~db=all~content=a910543795~frm=titlelink

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/118603761-77707526/content~db=all~content=a910543795~frm=titlelink

79

Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. (1987). How many subjects? Statistical power analysis

in research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lees, A. (2003). Science and the major racket sports: a review. Journal of Sport Sciences,

21, 707-732.

Macquet, A.C. (2009). Recognition within the decision-making process: A case study of

expert volleyball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 64-79.

Magill, R.A., (2004). Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. McGraw-

Hill International ed.

Maxwell, J.P. (2000). From novice to no know-how: A longitudinal study of implicit

motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 111-120.

Maxwell, J.P., Masters, R.S.W., & Eves, F. (2000). Explicit versus implicit motor

learning: Dissociating selective and unselective modes of skill acquisition via

feedback manipulation. Journal of Sport Sciences, 6, 559.

McPherson, S.L. (2000). Expert-novice differences in planning strategies during

collegiate single tennis competition. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 22,

225-237.

Munzert, J. (2008). Does level of expertise influence imagined durations in open skills?

played versus imagined durations of badminton sequences. International Journal

of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 6, 24-38.

Nielsen, T.M., & McPherson, S.L. (2001). Response selection and execution skill of

professionals and novices during single tennis competition. Perceptual Motor Skills,

93, 541-55.

Neibert, P.J. (2009). Novice to expert practice via post professional athletic training

education: A grounded theory. Journal of Athletic Training, 44, 378-390.

Nourrit, D. (2003). On discontinuities in motor learning: A longitudinal study of complex

skill acquisition on a ski simulator. Journal of Motor behavior, 35, 151-170.

Omosegaard, B. (1996) Physical Training for badminton. International badminton

federation.

Paques, P.R., Fruchart, E., Dru, V., & Mullet, E. (2005). Cognitive algebra in sport

decision making. Theory and Decision, 58, 387-406.

80

Peter, A., Hastie, B., Sinelnikov, O.A., & Guarino, A. J. (2009). The development of skill

and tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European Journal of Sport

Science; 9, 133-140.

Postal, V. (2004). Expertise in cognitive psychology: Testing the hyphothesis of long

term working memory in a study of soccer player. Perceptual and Motor Skill,

99,403-420.

Raadt, M., Toleman, M., & Watson, R. (2004). Training strategic problem solvers. The

SIGCSE Bulletin, 36, 48-51.

Raju, S., Bapi, V. S., Chandrasekhar, P., Miyapuram, K. P., & Ahmed (2005).

Investigation of sequence processing: A cognitive and computational neuroscience

perspective. Current Science, 89.

Rossi, B., Zani, A., Taddei, F., & Pesce, C. (1992). Chronometric aspects of information

processing in high level fencers as compared to non-athletes: An ERPs and RT

study. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 23, 17-28.

Sakurai, S., & Ohtsuki, T. (2000). Muscle activity and accuracy of performance of the

smash stroke in badminton with reference to skill and practice. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 18,901-914.

Schack, T. (2003). Relationship of cognitive representation and performance in extreme

surfing. Applied Motoric Research in Sport, 22, 213-234.

Starkes, J.L., Helsen, W., &Jack, R. (2001). Expert performance in sport and dance.

Handbook of Sport Psychology, New York:Wiley.

Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor Control and Learning (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics Publishers.

Schmidt, R.A., & Wrisberg, C. A.(2008). Motor learning and performance: A situation-

based learning approach (4th

ed.). New York: Human kinetics.

Obayashi, S. (2004). Possible mechanism for transfer of motor skill learning :Implication

of the cerebellum. The Cerebellum, 3, 204-210.

Schmidt, R. Α. (1991). Motor Learning and Performance: From Principles to Practice.

Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics.

Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. J. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions.

Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29-46.

81

Starkes, J.L., & Deakin, J.M. (1987). Motor versus verbal recall of ballet sequences by

young expert dancers. Journal of Sports Psychology, 9, 222-230.

Thomas, Nelson,J. & Silverman, S.(2005). Research Methods in Physical Activity. New

York, Human Kinetics Publishers.

Tillaar, R.V.D., & Ettema, G. (2006). A comparison between novices and expert of the

velocity accuracy trade off in overarm throwing. Perceptual & Motor Skill.103,

503-514.

Trotter, R.J. (1986). The mystery of mastery. Psychology Today, 32-38.

Vickers, J.N. (1988). Knowledge structure of expert-novice gymnast. Human Movement

Science, 7, 47-72.

Villa, F.D., Gonzalez, A.D., & Iglesias, E.(2007). Expert novice differences in cognitive

and execution skill during tennis competition. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 104,

355-365.

Ward, P., & Williams, A.M. (2003). Perceptual and cognitive skill development in

soccer: The multidimensional nature of expert performance. Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology, 29, 93-93-119.

Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2004). Skill acquisition in sport: research: Theory and

practice. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis group.

Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, W. (2009). Inside the brain of an elite athlete: The

neural processes that support high achievement in sports. Neuroscience Advance

Online Publication.

Zoudji, B., & Thon, B. (2003). Expertise and implicit memory: Differential repetition

priming effects on decision making in experienced and inexperienced soccer

players. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 189-207.

82

APPENDICES

83

APPENDIX A

TEST BATTERY SCHEDULE

May 2010

Date 3 th 4 th 6 th

Agenda First Meeting Second Meeting

(Data collection)

Third Meeting

(Data collection)

Objective

-Briefing on the purpose

of this study

-Consent form

- Badminton stroke accuracy - motor sequencing task

84

APPENDIX B

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM SOLVING AMONG

INTERMEDIATE (NATIONAL BACK UP) AND NOVICE (ACADEMY)

MALAYSIA BADMINTON PLAYERS.

Dear subjects,

Universiti Teknologi Mara supports the practice of protection for human subjects

participating in research. The following information is provided for you to decide

whether you wish to participate in the present study. You may refuse to sign this form

and not participate in this study. You should be aware that even if you agree to

participate, you are free to withdraw at any time.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to determine the correlation of sport skill and problem

solving in intermediate and novice badminton player’s aspect. This study is mean only

for academic purpose, therefore the data will be obtained are not for the use of

commercial or other purpose.

PROCEDURES

This study will only focus on your sport skill and problem solving. You will be tested as

below:

No

.

Categories Test Measure

1 Sport skill Badminton stroke accuracy

(serve stroke and smash stroke)

Strokes accuracy

2. Problem solving Motor sequencing task

(serve and smash)

Decision making

85

RISKS

Due to the test, you may implicated with fallen or sprain. Therefore the rule and

regulation must be followed once you agreed to participate with this study.

PAYMENT AND BENEFITS

No payment will be given to you; instead your institution will be credited due to the

participation in this study

REFUSAL TO SIGN CONSENT

You are not required to sign this Consent form and you may refuse to do so without

affecting your right to any services you are receiving or may receive from the Universiti

Teknologi Mara. However, if you refuse to sign, you cannot participate in this study.

PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION:

I have read this consent form and fully understand with it content. Thus, I’m agreeing to

take part in this study as a research participant. By my signature I affirm that I am fully

aware all false acts within this study are in my responsibilities.

_____________________________ _____________________

Participant's Name Date

________________________________________

Participant's Signature

Thank you for your cooperation

Researcher

Kalam Azad Hj Isa

2008410192

Msc. Sport Science

Faculty of Sport Science

Universiti Teknologi Mara

86

APPENDIX C

RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM SOLVING AMONG

BADMINTON PLAYERS

DATA COLLECTION SHEET

NAME : _______________________________ SEX : MALE / FEMALE

AGE : year’s old

RACE : _________

SPORTS : _______________________

LEVEL OF SPORT PARTICIPATION : ____________________

YEAR’S OF PARTICIPATING : ________ year’s

BADMINTON SKILL TEST

Date : _______________ Time : ___________AM/PM

Badminton stroke accuracy

Trial

Test 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL

( / 100)

Serve

Smash

DATA COLLECTION SHEET

87

Motor Sequencing Task Error Time Complete

Serving

Smashing

REMARK : _____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

88

APPENDIX D

Motor Sequencing Task (Serve)

89

Motor Sequencing Task (Smash)

90

APPENDIX E

Hypothetical changes across age in the relative importance of knowledge,

experience and skill for high strategy tasks (Abernethy, Thomas & Thomas, 1993)

91

APPENDIX F

Illustration of testing protocol

Subject perform serve stroke test

Smash test

Subject perform smash stroke test

92

Subject perform motor sequencing task (MST1)

Subject perform motor sequencing task (MST2)

93

APPENDIX G

Status of approval of projects by UiTM ethics committee

94

-END-

Documents

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA RELATIONSHIP OF SPORT SKILL AND PROBLEM SOLVING AMONG INTERMEDIATE (NATIONAL BACKUP) AND NOVICE (ACADEMY) BADMINTON PLAYER