01 Pages : 1-9
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of The aim of this research was to examine goal setting in volleyball serving performance, state anxiety, and self-efficacy among female athletes. Thirty female volleyball players from Lahore College for Women University and Lahore University of Management Sciences, aged 19 to 25, participated. They were divided into an experimental group, which received goal-setting instruction through seminars and lectures, and a control group, which received coaching on serving tactics and skills. Standardized questionnaires, including the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Serving Effort/Performance Questionnaire, and Goal Setting Questionnaire, were used for data collection. The findings revealed a significant increase in serving performance in the experimental group compared to the control group, indicating that the goal-setting intervention positively affected serving skills.
Key Words:
Goal Setting, Volleyball, Performance, Self-Efficacy
Introduction
Two vastly differing coaching philosophies and hence styles exist within the coaching world, yet it should be remembered that the ultimate aim of the coach is to motivate an athlete, or group of athletes, towards optimal performance (Martens & Vealey, 2019). For optimal performance to take place, both skill and motivation must be present (Meece, 2023), goal setting is showing promise as one method of motivating athletes toward optimal performance (Jeong et al., 2023). Coaches, as managers being their business sector counterparts, are always coming up with ideas to improve performance (Zuñiga-Collazos et al., 2019).
Specific, challenging, yet attainable goals bring about higher performance at work, school, or in other areas as compared to easy goals, general "do your best" goals, or no goals. In fact, this positive impact of goal setting has been established in 90% of the studies under review (Grant, 2012; Urits et al., 2019).
Volleyball, a dynamic and exciting sport, demands a combination of technical proficiency, strategic insight, and mental strength (Shieh et al., 2023). Among the innumerable skills essential to success, serving stands out as a crucial element, often serving as the initial point of contact between the server and the opposing team (Chelladurai & Kim, 2020). The research proposal aims to form an in-depth analysis of the relationship between goal setting, serving performance, anxiety levels, and self-efficacy with respect to the volleyball game (Machado et al., 2023).
Volleyball is a fast game with a quick and furious rally, demanding on the part of a player to acquire a wide variety of diverse skills. It is the service that forms one of the most crucial fundamentals of the game from where flow and a pan of a match take place. Otherwise speaking, it is the first shot in every point and, at the same time, might work on the opponent's psychology. Effective serving has not much to do with athleticism; much of it, though, has to do with the mind of the player. One of the most common psychological strategies applied in sporting activities, goal setting can be effectively used to attain enhanced performances in several dimensions. SMART goal setting is considered a process projecting clear action toward the attainment of skills and finally an enhanced performance by an athlete. With this consideration, setting goals with respect to volleyball serving performance, anxiety, and self-efficacy remains fairly unexplored (Stafford, 2022). This research will be based on the possible positive contribution of goal setting to volleyball players with respect to serving performance, as averred. By knowing how specific goals for serving relate to state anxiety levels and self-efficacy, coaches, and athletes can modify their training programs accordingly for the best results in performance. Previous research has pointed to the effectiveness of goal setting in improving athletic performance. However, the peculiar dynamics of volleyball, with specific technical demands and psychological pressures, need focused exploration on their own. Serving requires precision, consistency, and mental toughness, for it is an individual game skill. Therefore, research into how goal setting is related to serving performance might produce information on training methodology or some particular intervention.
More than this, anxiety and self-efficacy are common features of the psychological makeup of an athlete. The interaction of goal setting and these psychological factors is a key part of fully understanding the effect on overall performance. High anxiety will hurt optimal performance while self-efficacy what an athlete believes in regards to ability for success is at the very core center of executing athletic skills. This would require further research into how goal setting affects these psychological factors in order to complete the framework of athlete development.
Research Methodology
The research study was based on an experimental research design with pre-test, post-test, and randomized groups. The setting for the study was conducted at Lahore College for Women University and Lahore University of Management Sciences. From the said population, thirty female subjects, from ages 18 to 25 years, with 1-3 years of playing experience at the university level, were chosen through purposive sampling. The sample mean was 21.42 kg/m² in BMI, 50.13 kg in weight, 19.47 years in age, and 170.89 cm in height. Fifteen participants were selected from each university. No formal sample size calculation was carried out, and ethical guidelines were followed with concern for informed consent and confidentiality. Participants were divided into two groups namely Group-1 (Goal Setting, n=15) and Group-2 (Control, Instructions only, n=15). One week before the study, the researcher approached the sports directors and coaches at LCWU and LUMS to explain the purpose of the study and to obtain the consent forms. The six-week training program ran for five days a week, for two hours a session, with coaches implementing a particular service training drill. Variables were assessed with pre-tests and post-tests that included the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2, Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Serving Effort/Performance Questionnaire, and Goal Setting Questionnaire. The goal-setting group received extra lectures and seminars, while the control group received technical instructions. The procedures for the post-test measurement of game service performance and test service performance were the same as the baseline measures. All data analyses were conducted with SPSS version 16. First, tests of normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test were conducted, followed by the main analyses in the form of parametric tests consisting of paired and independent t-tests assessing the effects of goal setting on serving performance, anxiety, and self-efficacy.
Table 1 Comparison of Pretest and Posttest Scores for Experimental Variables
| Variables width="4%">N width="8%">Mean width="6%">SEM width="7%">t width="10%">P value | > Experimental Self-Efficacy Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">32.66 width="6%">.85 width="7%" rowspan="2">-1.48 width="10%" rowspan="2">.02 | > Experimental Self-Efficacy Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">36.00 width="6%">1.23 | > Experimental Competition State Anxiety Inventory Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">28.13 width="6%">.49 width="7%" rowspan="2">5.12 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Competition State Anxiety Inventory Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">24.53 width="6%">.58 | > Experimental Service Effort Expenditure pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.40 width="6%">.30 width="7%" rowspan="2">-9.26 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Service Effort Expenditure posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">6.40 width="6%">.19 | > Experimental Service Task Difficulty Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">5.73 width="6%">.20 width="7%" rowspan="2">6.10 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Service Task Difficulty Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.46 width="6%">.32 | > Experimental Service Task Commitment Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.80 width="6%">.32 width="7%" rowspan="2">-4.58 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Service Task Commitment Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">6.00 width="6%">.21 | > Experimental Goal Difficulty Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">6.00 width="6%">.29 width="7%" rowspan="2">8.21 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Goal Difficulty Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.00 width="6%">.27 | > Experimental Goal Commitment Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.53 width="6%">.43 width="7%" rowspan="2">-5.29 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Goal Commitment Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">6.20 width="6%">.22 | > Experimental Goal Effort Expenditure Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">3.53 width="6%">.25 width="7%" rowspan="2">-7.17 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Goal Effort Expenditure Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">6.13 width="6%">.23 | > Experimental Goal Setting Pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">8.20 width="6%">.76 width="7%" rowspan="2">-4.51 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Goal Setting Posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">12.73 width="6%">.77 | > Experimental Service pretest width="4%">15 width="8%">5.66 width="6%">.72 width="7%" rowspan="2">-6.00 width="10%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Experimental Service posttest width="4%">15 width="8%">10.20 width="6%">.69 |
| Variables width="8%">N width="8%">Mean width="8%">SEM width="7%">t width="9%">P value | > Control Self-Efficacy Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">19.93 width="8%">1.92 width="7%" rowspan="2">.155 width="9%" rowspan="2">.879 | > Control Self- Efficacy Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">19.73 width="8%">.94 | > Control Competition State Anxiety Inventory Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">26.73 width="8%">.66 width="7%" rowspan="2">-2.288 width="9%" rowspan="2">.087 | > Control Competition State Anxiety Inventory Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">26.66 width="8%">.87 | > Control Service Effort Expenditure Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">3.80 width="8%">.27 width="7%" rowspan="2">.000 width="9%" rowspan="2">1.000 | > Control Service Effort Expenditure Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">3.80 width="8%">.27 | > Control Service Task Difficulty Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">4.53 width="8%">.35 width="7%" rowspan="2">.000 width="9%" rowspan="2">1.000 | > Control Service Task Difficulty Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">4.53 width="8%">.35 | > Control Service Task Commitment Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">6.26 width="8%">.26 width="7%" rowspan="2">.642 width="9%" rowspan="2">.531 | > Control Service Task Commitment Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">6.06 width="8%">.30 | > Control Service Pretest width="8%">15 width="8%">7.53 width="8%">.96 width="7%" rowspan="2">-3.532 width="9%" rowspan="2">.785 | > Control Service Posttest width="8%">15 width="8%">7.46 width="8%">.70 |
| Variables width="5%">N width="8%">Mean width="6%">SEM width="6%">t width="9%">P value | > Experimental Self-Efficacy Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">35.0 width="6%">1.23 width="6%" rowspan="2">9.80 width="9%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Control Self-Efficacy Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">19.73 width="6%">.94 | > Experimental Competition State Anxiety Inventory Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">24.53 width="6%">.58 width="6%" rowspan="2">-2.98 width="9%" rowspan="2">.003 | > Control Competition State Anxiety Inventory Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">27.66 width="6%">.87 | > Experimental Service Effort Expenditure Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">6.40 width="6%">.19 width="6%" rowspan="2">7.69 width="9%" rowspan="2">.000 | > Control Service Effort Expenditure Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">3.80 width="6%">.27 | > Experimental Service Task Difficulty Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">2.46 width="6%">.32 width="6%" rowspan="2">-2.24 width="9%" rowspan="2">.03 | > Control Service Task Difficulty Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">4.53 width="6%">.35 | > Experimental Service Task Commitment Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">6.0 width="6%">.21 width="6%" rowspan="2">-.18 width="9%" rowspan="2">.003 | > Control Service Task Commitment Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">2.06 width="6%">.30 | > Experimental Service Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">15.20 width="6%">.69 width="6%" rowspan="2">.74 width="9%" rowspan="2">.04 | > Control Service Posttest width="5%">15 width="8%">9.46 width="6%">.70 |
