Comparison of the Effect of Training Type on Functional Ability and Psychological Skills of Iraqi Male Volleyball Players Under Psychological Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of training type on the functional ability and psychological skills of Iraqi male volleyball players under psychological pressure. Methods and Materials: This research employed a quasi-experimental design and was conducted in a field setting. A total of 45 participants who were interested and met the inclusion criteria were purposefully selected and randomly assigned to three groups of 15: sports vision training, traditional training, and combined training. Psychological components were measured using the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3). Functional ability was assessed using the repeated effort test by Sheppard et al. (2007). To determine trait and state anxiety, the SCAT inventory by Martens (1997) and the CSAI-2 by Martens et al. (1990) were used, respectively. To create conditions of psychological pressure in the post-test, a combined supervision and comparison method was employed (Esmaeili et al., 2019). Data were analyzed using covariance analysis and Bonferroni post hoc tests. Findings: The results showed a statistically significant difference in the subscales of psychological skills in favor of the sports vision training group. Additionally, the scores of functional ability revealed a statistically significant difference favoring the specialized training group. Conclusion: The use of sports vision training is recommended for enhancing psychological skill components, while the implementation of specialized/traditional training programs is suggested for optimizing functional abilities under psychological pressure for the target population.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".