Smith & St. Peter Brief Report for Journal Submission

Running Head: FEEDBACK AND MODELING OF CHEERLEADING 1
Effects of Self-Experimentation Using Video Feedback and Modeling on Co-ed Cheerleading
Stunts
Alyssa L. Smith and Claire C. St. Peter
West Virginia University
Author Note
Alyssa L. Smith, Psychology Department, West Virginia University; Claire C. St. Peter,
Psychology Department, West Virginia University.
This manuscript was prepared as part of the requirements for an undergraduate course by
the first author, with the instruction of the second author.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Claire St. Peter, 53
Campus Drive, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506 (email: Claire.StPeter@mail.wvu.edu).

FEEDBACK AND MODELING OF CHEERLEADING 2
Abstract
Injury rates of co-ed stunts in college cheerleading are increasing, and may be caused in part by
improper stunt execution. We assessed effects of video feedback and modeling using a multiple
baseline design across three common co-ed cheerleading stunts, where the experimenter was also
one of the participants. The percentage of properly executed stunts increased considerably for
two of the stunts when video modeling and video feedback were used. Treatment effects
appeared to generalize to a related stunt in the absence of intervention. Treatment effects
maintained in a four-month follow-up observation.
Keywords: athletic performance, cheerleading, generalization, self-experimentation, video
feedback, video modeling

Self-Experimentation Using Video Feedback and Modeling on Co-ed Cheerleading Stunts
Injury rates related to cheerleading increased 110% from 1990 to 2002 (Shields & Smith,
2006), with 60% of all cheerleaders’ injuries related to attempting stunts (Shields, Fernandez, &
Smith, 2009). Because cheerleading is a year-round sport, cheerleaders are also 42% more likely
to obtain an injury from overuse than athletes that take at least one season off (Cuff, Loud, &
O’Riordan, 2010). Stunt-related injuries and falls during performances and practice may be due
to improper coaching techniques or poor foundational skills of performers (Waters, 2012).
Video feedback and video modeling may be an alternative coaching method to increase
the accuracy of stunt completion, thereby decreasing injuries. Video modeling occurs when
individuals involved in the skill watch a video of correct performance of the skill (Boyer,
Miltenberger, Batsche, & Fogel, 2009). Video feedback occurs when an individual watches a
video recording of their own performance of a particular skill to obtain feedback on their
technique, execution, or form (Boyer et al.). Video feedback or video modeling in isolation may
improve performance of skills in sports such as football (Stokes, Luiselli, Reed, & Fleming,
2010), swimming (Hazen, Johnstone, Martin, & Srikameswaran, 1990), rock climbing (Boschker
& Bakker, 2002), and tennis (Rikli & Smith, 1980). Video modeling and video feedback in
combination may be useful for sports that require complex response chains or interactions
between multiple performers. However, few studies have evaluated combined visual feedback
and modeling on sports performance.
In a notable exception, Boyer et al. (2009) used a combination of video feedback and
video modeling to improve three common gymnastics skills. In the study, computer technicians
recorded and showed the gymnasts videos of themselves performing the skills to enable self-
evaluation of their own performance. The videos were recorded using complex equipment
fortified with freeze-frame playback technology. The gymnasts also viewed a video of a

professional modeling the correct performance. The two videos were shown independently, then
simultaneously on separate computer screens, side-by-side. Skills improved to some extent for
all four participants after video feedback and modeling were implemented, but were not clearly
maintained across time.
One disadvantage of the procedures described by Boyer et al. (2009) is that those
procedures required continuous presence of an outside expert (the computer technicians) to cue
and pause the video at appropriate places that highlighted key skills. Thus, these procedures may
not be easily implemented in typical sports practices, during which additional staff may not be
available. One potential solution to this issue is the use of self-experimentation. In other words,
the athletes could be responsible for identifying appropriate models, recording their own
performance, and playing both the model and the previously recorded performance before the
next practice attempt.
Such self-experimentation may have advantages over traditional methods of
experimentation. First, as previously mentioned, conducting a self-experiment requires no
assistance from outside sources. This advantage, along with the little to no time spent recruiting
participants, familiarizing participants with the procedure, identifying and acquiring incentives,
collecting data, traveling, and dealing with attrition, are advantages to a self-experimentation
method (Roberts & Neuringer, 1998). An additional advantage of self-experimentation is that the
researcher is particularly motivated and interested in the topic, making it more likely that they
will remain motivated to continue the experiment, even if it lasts for several months or years.
The same cannot be said for individuals who are recruited to participate in a study and have no
personal or emotional ties to the research (Roberts & Neuringer, 1998).

To our knowledge, research has not yet evaluated the effects of video feedback and
modeling for complex response chains that require the interaction of two performers, like co-ed
cheerleading. Additionally, studies have not yet reported generalization of video modeling and
feedback effects across skills or clear maintenance across time, nor have they used self-
experimentation to reduce reliance on outside individuals. The current study examined the
effects of combining video feedback and modeling on three complex stunts for a co-ed stunt
group in a collegiate cheerleading program. One of the stunt partners, the flyer, was also the
experimenter (the first author).
Method
Subjects and Setting
Two co-ed collegiate cheerleaders participated. The first participant, or the base, was a
23-year-old male who had been co-ed cheerleading for almost five years. The second participant,
or the flyer, was a 20-year-old female who had been cheerleading for almost 14 years, but had
only been co-ed cheerleading for about two years. The participants were stunt partners, meaning
that they performed stunts together for the majority of the time while on the team. The flyer
designed the intervention, identified video models prior to the intervention phase, and ensured
that each practice was video recorded, and arranged for playback of the video models and
previously recorded practice (video feedback). Data collection occurred during regularly
scheduled cheerleading practices. Practices took place with 18 additional cheerleaders three days
a week and were supervised by two coaches.
Response Measurement and Reliability
Three complex co-ed stunting skills were observed. These three stunts were selected
because they are common in co-ed college cheerleading, and the participants reported struggling

with correctly completing the stunts. Pictures of each stunt are included in the Appendix. The
first stunt was called the “full-up.” This stunt was considered to be executed correctly when the
base tossed the flyer off the ground and the flyer did a complete 360° spin before being caught at
the extended level, which occurred when the base had both arms fully extended above his head
with a flyer in his hands. After being caught, the flyer gained her balance and then pulled one leg
up into the liberty position. Once the flyer was standing on one foot, the stunt was held for 5s to
qualify as completed correctly.
The second stunt, or “low to high,” also began with the base tossing the flyer. However,
the flyer was only tossed to the half-level, or eye level to the base. After being tossed, the flyer
placed her left foot into the base’s hands at the half-level with the right leg in the liberty position.
Then, the flyer quickly switched the leg she was standing on as the base tossed her upward into
the extended position. The base caught the right foot and the flyer stood on that foot in the
extended liberty position for at least 5s for the stunt to qualify as completed correctly.
The third stunt, or “toss-cupie,” began with a toss. The stunt was correctly executed when
the base tossed the flyer straight up to the extended position, much like the full-up. However, the
flyer did not rotate and the base caught the flyer with one arm. The flyer stood on two feet in the
base’s hand instead of pulling her leg up to the liberty position. The stunt was completed
correctly when the flyer stood on the base’s hand for 5s.
The flyer collected data after each attempted stunt. A notecard was previously prepared
into a chart which included two columns, “completed” and “failed,” for each of the three
complex stunts. The flyer marked a stunt as “completed” when all of the steps for the stunt were
correctly executed. Each time one or more of the steps for the stunt were incorrectly executed,
the flyer marked the stunt as “failed.”

The spotter of the stunt independently collected data on “completed” and “failed” stunts
for 69.9% of sessions. Interobserver agreement was assessed using exact agreement, and yielded
100% agreement across the baseline and video-feedback phases.
The spotter collected treatment integrity data using a checklist. A copy of the treatment
integrity checklist is available from the corresponding author. Treatment integrity was collected
for 22% of the sessions. Treatment integrity scores were 100% throughout baseline and treatment
phases.
Procedures
We demonstrated experimental control through a multiple-baseline-across-responses
design. During baseline, practice for the two participants took place as it normally would. Data
were collected on completed and failed stunts as previously described. Participants received
typical instruction and feedback from their coach during this phase. Videos of participants were
not collected, and participants did not watch video models.
Intervention consisted of recording the targeted stunt during practice on the last day of
baseline and at every subsequent practice. At the beginning of the next practice, the participants
viewed the video of the targeted stunt(s) from the previous practice using a tablet device
measuring 24.1cm by 18.5cm together and discussed possible ways to execute the stunt more
appropriately. The participants also watched and discussed a video of two professionals properly
executing the stunt. The videos were typically around 10s. After participants viewed the videos,
practice commenced as in baseline. Participants watched stunt videos before practice on each day
during the intervention phase. Video modeling and feedback was introduced across successive
stunts.

Participants stopped watching the videos on the last day of data collection for the
intervention phase. We probed for maintenance of intervention effects during a regularly
scheduled practice time that occurred four months after the last day of intervention, using
procedures identical to baseline. Participants did not watch videos prior to the practice or receive
feedback on their performance.
Social Validity
Social validity was assessed using a Likert-style questionnaire adapted from the one
described by Boyer and colleagues (2009), which used anchors of 0 (low validity) and 5 (high
validity; copy available from the corresponding author). Questionnaires were given to both
participants and the spotter to complete and means were obtained for each question.
Results
Figure 1 displays the results of the video feedback and modeling intervention across
stunts. Data for the full-up stunt are shown in the top panel. In baseline, the percentage of full-up
stunts completed correctly decreased slightly, with a mean of 17.5% correctly executed stunts
(range, 0% to 57.1%). During the video feedback and modeling phase, correct responding
increased immediately, with a mean of 86.9% (range, 50% to 100%). The middle panel shows
data for correct implementation of the low-to-high stunt. The mean percentage of correctly
executed low-to-high stunts was 17.5% in baseline (range, 0% to 50%). During the video
feedback and modeling phase, correct responding increased immediately to a mean of 85.2%
correct (range, 66.7% to 100%). The lower panel shows data for the toss-cupie stunt. During the
first nine sessions, which corresponded to the baseline phase for the full-up, the mean percentage
of correctly executed stunts for the toss cupie was 16.4% (range, 0% to 50%). However, the
percentage of correctly executed toss-cupie stunts dramatically increased and stabilized as soon

as treatment was implemented for the full-up. After the introduction of the treatment for the full-
up, the mean percent correct for the toss cupie increased to 91.7% (range, 66.7% to 100%).
Treatment was not implemented for the toss cupie due to this apparent generalization across
responses.
Treatment effects maintained during the four-month follow-up probe. The mean
percentages of correctly executed stunts were 75%, 100% and 100% for the full-up, low-to-high,
and toss cupie, respectively.
The social validity questionnaire showed that the cheerleaders liked the procedure (M=
4.33), would recommend the procedure to other collegiate cheerleaders (M= 4.67), believed it
was moderately easy to follow (M= 3.67), believed it was helpful in learning to execute the stunt
properly (M= 4.33), and believed it was very effective in improving skill performance (M= 5).
Discussion
Although several studies have evaluated effects of video feedback and modeling
(Boschker & Bakker, 2002; Boyer et al., 2009; Hazen et al., 1990; Rikli & Smith, 1980; Stokes
et al., 2010), only one combined both modeling and feedback for a sport similar to cheerleading
(gymnastics; Boyer et al., 2009). Boyer and colleagues obtained moderate improvements in
performance, with variable maintenance of those skills across 4 to 6 weeks of follow-up. The
current study adds to our knowledge of the efficacy of video feedback and modeling for
improving athletic performances that are part of complex response chains, and obtained more
dramatic improvements in performance than those reported by Boyer and colleagues. Increasing
our understanding of efficient and effective practices may ultimately result in reduced injury
rates associated with incorrectly executed athletic skills.

The current study varied from the procedures described by Boyer et al. (2009) by
including a self-experimentation component. In the current study, one of the participants (the
flyer) was involved in the design and execution of the study. Including a self-experimentation
component reduced reliance on outside individuals. Unlike the study by Boyer et al., which used
dedicated computer technicians to collect, edit, and display videos, we were able to use video
modeling and feedback to improve the performance without any additional staff. Including a
self-experimentation component may have led to the more robust outcomes in the current study
relative to those obtained by Boyer and colleagues, because the participants were highly invested
in the treatment outcomes. Despite this investment, we were able to obtain frequent, high levels
of interobserver agreement and treatment integrity, suggesting that the changes in behavior were
believable and not just the result of a change in data collection strategies across phases of the
study. In addition, because the researcher had access to distinctive behaviors to study, the current
self-experiment supplements the previous literature in a unique way.
The current study also adds to the literature by demonstrating the generalization of video-
feedback effects across related sports skills. Both the full-up and the toss-cupie involved a
similar toss upward to the extended level. The video feedback and modeling for the full-up may
have reduced the problems that the cheerleaders were experiencing with the toss-cupie. Video
feedback and modeling could be an effective strategy for teaching basic skills that contribute to
several complex response chains, thereby promoting more rapid and accurate acquisition of
multiple skills. Although this generalization was desirable clinically, it reduced the extent to
which experimental control could be demonstrated. Future research should explicitly include
multiple similar and dissimilar athletic skills to evaluate the extent to which generalization
occurs.

The current study was conducted in the context of regularly scheduled cheerleading
practices. Although this increases our confidence that the procedures are manageable for applied
settings, it also resulted in substantial variability in the number of stunts attempted per day. The
participants completed between 0 and 12 of each stunt during each practice. This variability in
the number of stunts may have induced variability in the percentage correct. Additionally, the
variability led to discrepancies in the amount of practice that the participants had with each stunt.
Despite these possible issues, we demonstrated a clear difference in accuracy between baseline
and intervention performance.
The results of the current study advance our knowledge on best practices for coaching
complex athletic performances. The self-evaluation nature of the method renders this
intervention extremely practical in everyday practice settings. Because the videos were taken,
viewed, and discussed with little participation needed of others, coaches could easily implement
this procedure in their programs. Just as football players watch game film after a game,
cheerleaders could view their performance after practice and visually see their performance
instead of just being told how to execute the stunt better verbally. Although further research is
needed, video feedback and modeling may be powerful tools for teaching proper execution of
cheerleading skills and, in turn, reducing injuries.

References
Boschker, M. J., & Bakker, F. C. (2002). Inexperienced sport climbers might perceive and utilize
new opportunities for action by merely observing a model. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
95(1), 3-9.
Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., & Fogel, V. (2009). Video modeling by experts by
experts with video feedback to enhance gymnastics skills. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42(4), 855-860.
Cuff, S., Loud, K., & O’Riordan, M. A. (2010). Overuse injuries in high school athletes. Clinical
Pediatrics, 49, 731–736.
Hazen, A., Johnstone, C., Martin, G. L., & Srikameswaran, S. (1990). A videotaping feedback
package for improving skills of youth competitive swimmers. The Sport Psychologist,
4(3), 213-227.
Rikli, R., & Smith, G. (1980). Videotape feedback effects on tennis serving form. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 50(3), 895-901.
Roberts, S., & Neuringer, A. (1998). Self-experimentation. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.),
Handbook of Research Methods in Human Operant Behavior (pp.619-656). New York:
Plenum Press.
Shields, B. J., & Smith, G. A. (2006). Cheerleading-related injuries to children 5 to 18 years of
age: United States, 1990-2002. Pediatrics, 117, 122-129
Shields, B. J., Fernandez, S. A., & Smith G. A. (2009). Epidemiology of Cheerleading Stunt-
Related Injuries in the United States. Journal of Athletic Training, 44(6), 586–594.
Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., & Fleming, R. K. (2010). Behavioral coaching to
improve offensive line pass-blocking skills of high school football athletes. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 463-472.

Waters, N. (2012). What goes up must come down! A primary care approach to preventing
injuries amongst highflying cheerleaders. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse
Practitioners, 25(2), 55–64.

Figure 1. Percentage of correctly executed stunts per session, across three stunts. Intervention
was not implemented for the third behavior (toss cupie) because it stabilized at a high percent
after implementation of treatment for the full-up. Data points are omitted when the stunt was not
attempted.

Appendix
Full-Up

Low-to-High

Toss Cupie

Smith & St. Peter Brief Report for Journal Submission

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Smith & St. Peter Brief Report for Journal Submission

Similar to Smith & St. Peter Brief Report for Journal Submission (20)

Smith & St. Peter Brief Report for Journal Submission