Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Elizabeth K. Clark x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Victor H. Mancini, Elizabeth K. Clark, and Deborah A. Wuest

Both the short- and long-term effects of systematic supervisory feedback (SSF) using CAFIAS on the behaviors of a field hockey coach and her team were examined. The investigation was divided into four phases. During Phase I the coach was videotaped five times to provide baseline data. In Phase II the coach was videotaped nine times and was provided with SSF. At the conclusion of the intervention, five practices were videotaped for Phase III. One year later, in Phase IV, the coach was again videotaped for five practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated and comparisons were made between the behaviors exhibited in Phases I and III as well as Phases III and IV. Praise and information increased, and directions and criticism decreased from Phases I and III. These changes were evident 1 year later. This investigation demonstrates that even the behaviors of an experienced coach can be altered using SSF and that these changes can be sustained over time.

Restricted access

Thomas L. McKenzie, Elizabeth K. Clark, and Randi McKenzie

Restricted access

Winnie Y.H. Lee, Bronwyn K. Clark, Elisabeth Winkler, Elizabeth G. Eakin, and Marina M. Reeves

Background:

This study evaluated the responsiveness to change in physical activity of 2 self-report measures and an accelerometer in the context of a weight loss intervention trial.

Methods:

302 participants (aged 20 to 75 years) with type 2 diabetes were randomized into telephone counseling (n = 151) or usual care (n = 151) groups. Physical activity (minutes/week) was assessed at baseline and 6-months using the Active Australia Survey (AAS), the United States National Health Interview Survey (USNHIS) walking for exercise items, and accelerometer (Actigraph GT1M; ≥1952 counts/minute). Responsiveness to change was calculated as responsiveness index (RI), Cohen’s d (postscores) and Cohen’s d (change-scores).

Results:

All instruments showed significant improvement in the intervention group (P < .001) and no significant change for usual care (P > .05). Accelerometer consistently ranked as the most responsive instrument while the least responsive was the USHNIS (responsiveness index) or AAS (Cohen’s d). RIs for AAS, USNHIS and accelerometer did not differ significantly and were, respectively: 0.45 (95% CI: 0.26–0.65); 0.38 (95% CI: 0.20–0.56); and, 0.49 (95% CI: 0.23–0.74).

Conclusions:

Accelerometer tended to have the highest responsiveness but differences were small and not statistically significant. Consideration of factors, such as validity, feasibility and cost, in addition to responsiveness, is important for instrument selection in future trials