The Effects of Verbal Encouragement and Compliments on Physical Performance and Psychophysiological Responses During the Repeated Change of Direction Sprint Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general and sports psychology research is limited regarding the difference between the effects of verbal encouragement (VE) or compliment methods during high-intensity functional exercise testing. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of VE and compliments on the performance of the repeated change-of-direction (RCOD) sprint test. A total of 36 male students in secondary school participated voluntarily in the study. They were divided equally into three homogeneous groups [VE group, compliment group (CG), and control group) and performed a standardized one repetition RCOD. The RCOD (6 × 20 m with 25-s active recovery) test consisted of a 100°change in the direction at every 4 m. Outcomes included performance indices (fast time, average time, and total time), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and feeling scale scores. VE and the compliment increased the performance indices and RPE compared with the control group. In conclusion, VE during the exercise testing would be more beneficial for optimal performance and RPE compared with the compliment and control groups. However, the moods, during RCOD, reproduce more positively during compliment conditions than the VE and control groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".