Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Jonathan R. Males x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Jonathan R. Males and John H. Kerr

This paper examines the relationship between precompetitive affect and performance, using elements of reversal theory (Apter, 1982): a conceptual framework that incorporates a full range of pleasant and unpleasant moods. Nine elite male slalom canoeists completed questionnaires prior to each event of a season that included the world championships. Results were analyzed using a time-series model to make comparisons of each subject’s best and worst performance of the season. Predicted variations in precompetitive levels of pleasant and unpleasant mood did not occur, despite variations in subsequent performances. As predicted, good performances were preceded by low discrepancies between felt and preferred arousal levels, but there was no support for the hypothesis that a large discrepancy between perceived stress and coping efforts would precede a poor performance.

Restricted access

Jonathan R. Males, John H. Kerr, Joanne Thatcher and Emma Bellew

The present study investigated the psychological experiences of elite athletes in a team that failed using qualitative methods informed by reversal theory. Five athletes, from a national men’s volleyball team, playing in a European tournament completed a post-game review after each of 6 games. After the tournament, each player took part in in-depth semi-structured interviews, prompted by their post-game reviews. The results indicated that unrealistic expectations, poor team motivation, a negative coaching style, and faulty team process around game performance played an important role in the failure of this team. Also, inappropriate metamotivational states and state reversals were found to have had a negative impact on team performance. Several consultant recommendations for enhancing team motivation and functioning are identified.

Restricted access

Nicholas M. Brisson, Paul W. Stratford, Saara Totterman, José G. Tamez-Peña, Karen A. Beattie, Jonathan D. Adachi and Monica R. Maly

Investigations of joint loading in knee osteoarthritis (OA) typically normalize the knee adduction moment to global measures of body size (eg, body mass, height) to allow comparison between individuals. However, such measurements may not reflect knee size. This study used a morphometric measurement of the cartilage surface area on the medial tibial plateau, which better represents medial knee size. This study aimed to determine whether normalizing the peak knee adduction moment and knee adduction moment impulse during gait to the medial tibial bone–cartilage interface could classify radiographic knee OA severity more accurately than traditional normalization techniques. Individuals with mild (N = 22) and severe (N = 17) radiographic knee OA participated. The medial tibial bone–cartilage interface was quantified from magnetic resonance imaging scans. Gait analysis was performed, and the peak knee adduction moment and knee adduction moment impulse were calculated in nonnormalized units and normalized to body mass, body weight × height, and the medial tibial bone–cartilage interface. Receiver operating characteristic curves compared the ability of each knee adduction moment normalization technique to classify participants according to radiographic disease severity. No normalization technique was superior at distinguishing between OA severities. Knee adduction moments normalized to medial knee size were not more sensitive to OA severity.