How high-performance practitioners think and intervene to change technique

Changing technique, whereby a permanent strategy is adopted to improve performance or reduce injury risk, is a common goal among sport practitioners in high performance sports. However, there is little information about how technique change is done in practice and whether any evidence-based methods or frameworks are applied. Our aim was to explore individual and team-sport practitioner experiences concerning the process and types of methods adopted for technique change, across a range of practitioner groups and sports.

Qualitative interviews were conducted with fifteen practitioners from three practitioner groups; sport coaches, therapists, and strength & conditioning coaches (S&C), who had experience changing technique with adults in high-performance sports' settings.

Data was thematically analyzed guided by a qualitative approach, apriori knowledge on the topic, and a critical realist paradigm.

When intervening, S&Cs and therapists reported focusing on physical assessments and modifications, often divorcing the action from the sport context initially. For example, jump mechanics were assessed on a force plate, followed by jump exercise interventions in isolation, then final applications to the sport and positional demands, such as a header in soccer, were implemented. Coaches reported staying within the sport context, but scaling back task difficulty. There was little evidence that techniques discussed in the literature, such as exaggerating errors, or contrasting between old and new ways, were used to change technique. Practitioners primarily used prescriptive, direct instructional approaches, using feedback to highlight 'errors' (focusing attention both internally and externally). They emphasized a practitioner integrated approach for a successful intervention, but there was a lack of objective assessment of an intervention's success, particularly in transfer to competition.

Sport practitioners were regularly working on technique change in a systematic way, but not guided by current evidence-recommended methods. There was a desire to learn more about these methods, particularly those that seemed counter to current direct instructional practice; such as continual contrasting and augmenting of existing 'errors'. There is a need for greater communication between researchers and practitioners to facilitate awareness of methods and the rationale behind their effectiveness.