The present study focuses on two factors that may influence the accuracy and precision of a judge's evaluation of the angular deviation error in “inverted cross” (angle of the arms away from the horizontal axis). 16 Greek judges of competitive gymnastics participated in an evaluation of the magnitude of the error in the skill. Photographs of the performance of 8 gymnasts were shown to the judges in triplicates in random order from three angles of observation (0°, 45°, and 90°) on a computer screen. The precision in the judges' judgments was best at the 45° angle of observation and at angular deviations of 16° to 30°. Accuracy was influenced both by the judge's angle of observation and the gymnast's angular deviation, as well as by the interaction. Overall, judges may need to improve their ability to evaluate performance through training. Training may incorporate a variety of exercises in judging the inverted cross through augmented feedback of knowledge of results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbernethyB.RussellD. G. (1987) The relationship between expertise and visual search strategy in a racquet sport. Human Movement Science, 6, 283–319.
2.
AdamsJ. A. (1971) A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111–149.
3.
AdamsW. J.GrafE. W.ErnstM. O. (2004) Experience can change the “light-from-above” prior. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1057–1058.
4.
AnsorgeC. J.ScheerJ. K. (1984) Biasing factors affecting judging of gymnastics. Technique, 4(2), 19–21.
5.
AnsorgeC. J.ScheerJ. K. (1988) International bias detected in judging gymnastics competition at the 1984 Olympic games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 103–107.
6.
AnsorgeC. J.ScheerJ. K.LaubJ.HowardH. J. (1978) Bias in judging women's gymnastics induced by expectations of within-team order. Research Quarterly, 49, 399–405.
7.
BardC.FleuryM. (1976) Analysis of visual search activity during sport problem situations. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 3, 214–222.
8.
BardC.FleuryM. (1981) Considering eye movement as a prediction of attainment. In CockerillI. M.MacGillivrayW. W. (Eds.), Vision and sport. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes. Pp. 28–41.
9.
CalkinG. F. (1979) Judging effects in men's collegiate judging. International Gymnast, 21(1), 55.
10.
CavalloV.LaurentM. (1988) Visual information and skill level in time-to-collision estimation. Perception, 17, 623–632.
11.
CrileyD. (1972a) NCAA University Division viewpoints. Gymnast, 14(4), 14–31.
CrileyD. (1974) NCAA University Division gymnastic championship. Gymnast, 16, 18–36.
14.
DarrasN. G. (1995) Variability in the kinematics of young competitive swimmers during the grab start. Athens, Greece: XI FINA World Sports Medicine Progress, BIOKIN (Sport Measurement).
15.
FeigleyD. A. (1980) Psychological factors in gymnastics judging: Personal feelings about locus of control and susceptibility to external influences. NAWGT National Newsletter, 2(3), 2–4.
16.
International Federation of Gymnastics. (2006) The code of points. Lucerne, Switzerland: Raeber.
17.
IordanovN.MikovT.TicinovO.PetrovN. (1986) Motion analysis program in artistic gymnastics. Sofia, Bulgaria: C.B.F.K.
18.
KernodleM. W.CarltonL. G. (1992) Information feedback and the learning of multiple-degree-of-freedom activities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24(2), 187–196.
19.
LeeD. N.LishmanJ. R.ThomsonJ. A. (1982) Regulation of gait in long jumping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 448–459.
20.
MillerD.NelsonR. (1973) Biomechanics of sport. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
21.
MorgensternY.MurrayR. (2009) Contextual lighting cues can override the light-from-above prior. Journal of Vision, 9(8), 65. Retrieved at http://www.journalofvision.org. [Abstract]
22.
PfeifferK.HombergU. (2007) Coding of azimuthal directions via imetcompensated combination of celestial compass clues. Current Biology, 17, 960–965.
23.
PlagenhoefS. (1971) Patterns of human motion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
PlessnerH.HaarT. (2006) Sports performance judgments from a social cognitive perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 555–575.
25.
PlessnerH.SchalliesE. (2005) Judging the cross on rings: A matter of achieving shape constancy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1145–1156.
26.
PowersW. T. (1973) Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
27.
PuhlJ. (1980) Use of video replay in judging gymnastics vaults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 51–54.
28.
RoseJ. D. (1997) A multilevel approach to the study of motor control and learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
RothsteinA. L.ArnoldR. K. (1976) Bridging the gap: Application of research on videotape feedback and bowling motor skills. Theory Into Practice, 1, 35–62.
30.
ScheerJ. K. (1973) Effect of placement in the order of competition on scores of Nebraska high school students. Research Quarterly, 44, 79–85.
31.
ScheerJ. K.AnsorgeC. J. (1975) Effects of naturally induced judge's expectations on the ratings of physical performances. Research Quarterly, 46, 463–470.
32.
ScheerJ. K.AnsorgeC. J.HowardJ. (1983) Judging bias induced by viewing contrived videotapes: A function of selected psychological variables. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 427–437.
33.
Ste-MarieD. M. (1999) Expert-novice differences in gymnastic judging: An information-processing perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 269–281.
34.
StephensonD. A.JacksonA. S. (1977) The effects of training and position on judge's ratings of a gymnastic event. Research Quarterly, 48, 177–180.
35.
WilsonV. E. (1976) Objectivity, validity, and reliability of gymnastic judging. The Research Quarterly, 47, 169–173.
