Study procedure
The UWS School Holiday Basketball Program is a basketball program for girls that ran for 5 consecutive days, for 4 hours per day, over the school holiday period in September 2013 (Australian Spring). The basketball program ran simultaneously across 2 sports centres in Greater Western Sydney, Australia, with each site having 2 full-size basketball courts. At each site, we aimed to recruit 40 female players and 4 coaches and the data collection team comprised 1 supervisor and 4 research assistants.
Parent/guardians who wanted to register their daughter(s) in the basketball program, and coaches who wanted to coach in the basketball program, initiated contact with the primary researcher (JMG) expressing their interest. Initial contact was made via phone, text message, email, or face-to-face. JMG screened all interested participants for eligibility using a standardised script or email/message. Parents of players who were deemed eligible for inclusion were given a study information sheet, informed consent/assent form, an emergency contact form, and a parent questionnaire (described below) to complete. Coaches who were deemed eligible for inclusion were provided with a study information sheet (containing a basic description of primary study aim), informed consent form and a coach questionnaire (described below) to complete. When all forms were completed and returned, the participant (player or coach) was enrolled into the study.
The program was structured the same each day (see Table
1) and included 2 training sessions and 2 games. In each of the training sessions, coaches were instructed to focus on 2 skills; however, the coach planned their own training sessions to teach these skills. Each day, the first training session focused on dribbling and defending skills and the second training session focused on passing/catching and shooting skills. Coaches had half of a court to deliver their training session. During each training session, research assistants used the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) [
14] to collect lesson context and coach behaviour data. During this time, players and coaches also wore sealed pedometers, and research assistants recorded their step counts at the conclusion of each training session. These data were summarised and entered onto a coach feedback form, where intervention coaches received a group average step count per minute and the percentage of time spent in each lesson context and coach behaviour according to SOFIT. This feedback was given to intervention coaches at the end of each day of the basketball program. A double round-robin tournament was created for the 2 games per day, which was played on a full court. During the designated breaks, players were free to do as they chose (e.g., talk amongst each other, eat, play basketball or other games of their choice).
Table 1
Daily program schedule
Training session 1 | 45 |
Break | 15 |
Game 1 | 40 |
Break | 15 |
Training session 2 | 45 |
Break | 15 |
Game 2 | 40 |
Baseline assessments were collected on the first day and follow up assessments were collected on the fifth day of the basketball program (see Table
2 for a summary of the data collected). Following the first 2 days of the program, the 4 coaches allocated to the intervention arm of the study attended a coach education session.
Table 2
Summary of data collected
Physical activity levels | Accelerometry | Duration of each program day | 1-5 |
| Pedometry | Duration of each training session | 1-5 |
| SOFIT | Duration of each training session | 1-5 |
Lesson context | SOFIT | Duration of each training session | 1-5 |
Coach behaviour | SOFIT | Duration of each training session | 1-5 |
Player motivation | Situational Motivation Scale | Following training session 2 | 1,5 |
Players’ perceived autonomy support | Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire | Following training session 2 | 1,5 |
Players’ anthropometric data | Stadiometer, scale, tape measure | Baseline | 1 |
Player demographic data | Parent questionnaire | Prior to study commencement | N/A |
Coach demographic data | Coach questionnaire | Prior to study commencement | N/A |
Coaching data | Coach questionnaire | Prior to study commencement/following training session 2 | Before day 1, 3, 5 |
Process evaluation | Process evaluation | End of coach education session 2 | 2 |
Intervention
Although this study is the first intervention study in an OYS setting directed at increasing players’ MVPA, there have been several interventions conducted in a similar setting (physical education) with the same objective (see Lonsdale et al. [
18] for a recent systematic review and meta-analysis). Several intervention studies included in Lonsdale et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis incorporated similar intervention components as our intervention. For example, strategies to reduce management and instruction time [
20,
21] in an effort to reduce inactivity, create leader awareness [
20], modified drills where physical activity was more inherent [
22], and preparation/organisation [
21,
23]). The authors’ findings indicated that physical education based interventions can increase the proportion of time students spent in MVPA while participating in physical education lessons [
18].
In the current study, coaches allocated into the intervention arm attended 2 coach education sessions. Each coach education session was approximately 2 hours in duration and took place in the afternoon following each of the first 2 days of the program. JMG conducted both coach education sessions. JMG is working towards a doctoral degree in the area of physical activity promotion in children and youth and has 4 years of experience coaching OYS teams. A research assistant was also present during both coach education sessions. The research assistant holds a doctoral degree in the area of physical activity promotion and also has previous experience (3 years) coaching OYS teams.
During the first coach education session (after day 1 of the program), approximately 20 minutes was spent providing coaches with information about MVPA (i.e., what it MVPA and how much should children accumulate daily based on national guidelines [
24]). Further, JMG summarised findings of a previous study that examined girls’ MVPA in OYS (in terms of proportion of practice time and steps/min) [
6]. Coaches were informed of a study by Scruggs, who found that 82–88 steps/min was approximately equivalent to spending 50% of the time physically active (in physical education) [
25]. In a physical education setting, spending 50% time in MVPA has been recommended as a target [
26]. Since no such recommendation exists in OYS, and a similar proportion of time spent in MVPA has been found in OYS [
6] and physical education [
27], we adopted Scruggs’ steps/min estimation as a guide for intervention coaches to gauge their athletes’ physical activity during the two training sessions. Coaches, however, were not explicitly instructed to aim for a specific proportion of time in MVPA or steps/min. Coaches were also shown how training time was typically spent during based on Guagliano et al.’s findings [
6]. The aforementioned study [
6] broke training sessions down into 6 mutually exclusive categories (management, knowledge delivery, fitness, skill practice, game play, and free play) based on the SOFIT [
14] (described in detail below).
Coaches were then given roughly 15 minutes to reflect on their training sessions. Coaches were prompted to consider how active they thought their players were during training, how they spent their time during training, and potential modifications they could make to some of their drills to increase opportunities for MVPA.
Coaches were then presented with individualised feedback for each of their 2 training sessions. All information provided on the coaches’ feedback form was explained to the coaches by JMG (approximately 15 mins); which included: group average steps/minute, proportion of training time spent in each SOFIT lesson context (described in next section), and coach behaviour recorded as occurrences per session (described in next section).
The next 30 minutes were spent discussing potential strategies coaches could implement to increase opportunities for MVPA. More specifically, the importance of planning, conducting warm-ups and cool downs, dynamic stretching as opposed to static stretching, using small long-term groups, providing ample equipment, using circuits/grids as opposed to lines, and avoiding elimination games were discussed as potential strategies to increase opportunities for MVPA during training.
Coaches were then presented with a case study. The case study was a short video of a basketball training session. Coaches were asked to modify the drills in the video in order to increase MVPA. Once coaches had modified drills, each coach demonstrated their modified drill on a basketball court. Coaches had the remainder of the session to plan their training sessions for the next day (roughly 20 minutes).
The beginning of the second coach education session (after day 2 of the program) was devoted to reviewing the strategies to increase MVPA that were discussed in the first coach education session (about 10 minutes). Coaches then reflected on their training sessions for approximately 15 minutes (either alone or with one another). Coaches were prompted to reflect on the strategies they tried to incorporate into their training sessions (and their success in doing so), and similar to the first session, how active they thought their players were during training, and how they spent their time during training.
The next 30 minutes were spent discussing potential strategies coaches could implement to decrease inactivity during training. More specifically, JMG discussed potential strategies to decrease or modify management (e.g. drill transition or drink breaks) and instruction time to reduce inactive time. Self-monitoring (e.g., limit number of drills, limit number of times providing instruction, or, limit the time spent delivering instructions) and goal setting (e.g., setting proximal and distal goals for the basketball program) were also discussed as potential strategies that coaches could implement to decrease inactivity during their training sessions.
Similar to the first coach education session, coaches were presented with a video case study of a basketball training session and were asked to modify the drills in the video in order to increase MVPA or decrease inactivity. Coaches were also asked to modify some of their commonly used drills. Once coaches had modified drills, each coach demonstrated their modified drill to each other on a basketball court (approximately 30 minutes).The remaining time (about 35 minutes) was devoted planning their training sessions and completing a process evaluation questionnaire.
Intervention coaches continued to receive individualised feedback after each program day (i.e., on program days 3–5). Individualised feedback was furtively delivered to intervention coaches in an effort to avoid raising suspicion among control coaches.
Coaches allocated into the control arm of the study were asked to coach as usual. Control coaches had access to the same equipment (e.g., basketballs, pylons, coloured training jerseys) as intervention coaches, but were not privy to any information provided during the coach education sessions or individualised feedback.
Outcome measures
Accelerometry
ActiGraph GT3X + accelerometers (ActiGraph; Pensacola, FL) were used to assess physical activity levels in this study. In a paediatric population, ActiGraph accelerometers have been shown to be valid and reliable devices for the measurement of physical activity levels [
28,
29]. Accelerometers were initialised once at the start of the week and set to record data at a sampling rate of 30 Hz, as well as step counts. Accelerometers were synchronized with an external clock and initialised to start recording 1 hour before the start of the first day of the basketball program and stop recording data 1 hour after the fifth day of the basketball program. Start and finish times of training sessions, games, and breaks were recorded. Players and coaches wore accelerometers. Female research assistants fitted players with an accelerometer. Accelerometers were placed over the right iliac crest and held in place using an adjustable elastic belt, prior to the start of each program day, and worn for the duration of the day. At the end of the fifth day, raw accelerometer counts were downloaded to a computer using ActiGraph software, integrated into 1-second epochs, and exported and saved to a Microsoft Excel file.
Evenson cut-points [
30] have been recommended to estimate physical activity intensity in children and adolescents [
29,
31]. Freedson cut-points [
32]; however, have been used by much of the existing literature that has examined physical activity in OYS [
6,
7,
12]. Both cut-points were used in this study; Evenson cut-points were used as our primary outcome and Freedson cut-points were presented to facilitate comparisons with previous studies. Using Evenson cut-points [
30], physical activity intensity was classified as the following (thresholds have been adjusted to account for 1-second epochs): inactive ≤1.67 counts per second; light physical activity ≥ 1.68 counts per second <38.25; moderate physical activity ≥38.26 counts per second <66.85; and vigorous physical activity ≥66.86 counts per second [
30]. Using Freedson’s metabolic equivalent of task (MET) prediction equation [
32] physical activity intensity was classified as the following: inactive ≤100 counts/min; light physical activity ≥ 1.5 METs <4; moderate physical activity ≥4 METs <7; and vigorous physical activity ≥7 METs [
32]. To account for our 1-second epochs, age-specific counts per minute were divided by 60. Although there is still some debate regarding suitable MET-intensity thresholds for children and adolescents [
29], the thresholds selected for this study have been previously used in a female paediatric population [
6,
33].
Pedometry
Two models of Yamax Digiwalker (Tokyo, Japan) pedometers were used in this study, the SW-200 and SW-700. Both the SW-200 and SW-700 models use the same pendulum mechanism to count steps [
34]. Studies have found that the SW series of Yamax Digiwalkers is sensitive to increases in physical activity, has a high level of agreement with observed steps, and is a valid assessment of the volume of physical activity in children [
35‐
37]. Players and coaches wore sealed pedometers over the right iliac crest, for the duration of both training sessions that occurred daily. Female research assistants assisted players with the placement of the pedometer. Research assistants recorded individual step counts following each training session and reset the pedometer. Pedometers were employed in this study to quickly provide intervention coaches with feedback on their players’ physical activity levels during that day’s training sessions.
Direct observation
SOFIT is a widely used direct observation system that uses momentary time sampling to generate data on players’ physical activity, lesson context, and leader behaviour [
14]. Studies have shown that SOFIT has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity in paediatric populations [
14,
38]. SOFIT can be easily implemented in an OYS setting, yet only one peer-reviewed study that we are aware of (conducted by our research team) has used the direct observation system in OYS [
6].
Prior to session commencement, the observer implementing SOFIT, quasi-randomly and furtively selected 4 (plus an alternate) players to observe for the duration of the session [
6,
39]. Players were observed for 4 minutes at a time, on a rotational basis. Physical activity levels, lesson context, and leader behaviour were coded and recorded on paper every 20 seconds using a looped voice recording that prompted the observer to observe and record. At the end of each observe interval, lesson context was coded into only 1 of 6 mutually exclusive categories: management, knowledge delivery, fitness, skill practice, game play, and free play. Leader behaviour, however, is coded using a hierarchical format. Leader behaviour was coded into 1 of 4 categories and included (in hierarchal order) promotes physical activity (includes prompts of encouragement and praise) or discourages physical activity (includes prompts that are sarcastic and punitive in nature), demonstrates physical activity, and other. Promotes physical activity or discourages physical activity, therefore, is recorded if it occurs at any time during the 10-sec observe interval; whereas ‘other’ is only scored if the other categories are not observed during the 10-sec observe interval. JMG has been trained to use the observation technique and has collected SOFIT data for other peer-reviewed work [
6]. JMG trained all research assistants to use SOFIT using recommended guidelines [
40]. Research assistants’ SOFIT coding accuracy was assessed against a pre-coded ‘gold standard’ video developed by McKenzie [
40]. Coding accuracy was assessed using percent agreement, where a minimum of 80% agreement between scores was set as the minimum acceptable level of agreement [
40].
Questionnaires
At baseline (day 1) and follow up (day 5), players were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of their coach’s autonomy-supportive behaviour by completing 4 items from the Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire [
41,
42]. Players responded to questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all, 7 = very true). Scores on the TASC were averaged and ranged from 1 to 7, higher scores were indicative of greater perceived coach autonomy-supportive behaviour.
Players also completed the 14-item Situational Motivation Scale which assesses constructs of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation [
43]. Players responded to questions on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all, 7 = very true). Based on players’ average scores from the four subscales of the SIMS, a self-determination index (SDI) was created (SDI = 2*intrinsic motivation + identified motivation – external regulation – 2*amotivation, e.g., Lonsdale et al. [
44]). Scores on the SIMS can range from −18 to 18, where higher scores were indicative of greater self-determined motivation towards participation in a situation (i.e., basketball practice) [
44,
45]. Both the Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire and the Situational Motivation Scale have received empirical support for reliability and validity [
41,
46,
47].
A demographic questionnaire was distributed to parents and coaches for descriptive data purposes. The questionnaire that was distributed to parents collected data on parents’ level of education, relationship status, and household income. The questionnaire also collected data on their daughter’s age, country of birth, cultural background, and OYS information (number of OYS played, level, number and minutes of training sessions per week, and number and minutes of games per week). This questionnaire was only distributed to parents once, prior to the commencement of the study.
The questionnaire distributed to coaches collected data on: age, sex, height, weight, country of birth, cultural background, highest education qualification, relationship status, OYS information (number of OYS played, level, number and minutes of training sessions per week, and number and minutes of games per week), physical activity information (number and time spent in vigorous, moderate, and light physical activity) and leisure-time information (time spent sleeping, sitting, standing, watching television, and using a computer). These data were only collected from coaches once, prior to commencement of the study. Coaches responded to questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a great extent) about coaching, regarding training session planning, estimations on player physical activity during training, estimations on percentage of time spent in each SOFIT lesson context (described above), perceived ability to modify training sessions, perceived importance of physical activity during training, intention to increase physical activity/reduce inactivity, and likelihood of increasing physical activity/reducing inactivity. These data were collected prior to the start of the study, after intervention end (day 3), and at follow up (day 5).
Anthropometric measures
Prior to measurement, players were asked to remove shoes and any heavy clothing. Standing height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a portable stadiometer (PE87 portable stadiometer; Mentone Educational, Victoria, Australia). Weight was measured using a digital scale (EF 538 HealthStream digital scale; Aussie Fitness, Queensland, Australia) to the nearest 0.1 kg. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts, body mass index (BMI) was calculated and converted into age- and sex-specific percentiles [
48]. Waist circumference measurements were taken on the right side of the body by finding the midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest [
49]. A non-elastic tape measure (Myotape; Mentone Educational, Victoria, Australia) was wrapped snugly around the waist and measurement was taken at the end of exhalation to the nearest 0.1 cm. All measurements were conducted in duplicate and an average was recorded. A third measurement was taken if the first two measures differ by more than 0.5 cm or 0.5 kg and the average was recorded. Female research assistants collected all waist circumference measurements.
Process evaluation
A process evaluation was undertaken following the UWS School Holiday Basketball Program. The process evaluation assessed, using questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a great extent) and open-ended questions, the program’s feasibility and acceptability of the program amongst coaches.