Thought processes of golfers during long-range putts

1
BRUNEL UNIVERSITY LONDON
DIVISION OF SPORT, HEALTH AND EXERCISE SCIENCES
VERBAL PROTOCOL ANALYSIS IN GOLF: AN ILLUSTRATION OF THOUGHT
PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS
Running head: THOUGHT PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS
BY
GREGORY J PALIN
Supervised by:
DR ROBIN JACKSON
A Dissertation submitted in partial
fulfilment of a BSc (Hons) Degree:
Sport Sciences Component
2015

THOUGHT PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS 2
Acknowledgements
Without the guidance and support of many people, this dissertation project would not have
been possible. Firstly, I would like to express my thanks to my supervisor, Dr Robin Jackson,
whose expertise, guidance and feedback have been extremely beneficial towards the
completion of this dissertation. In addition, I want to sincerely thank the participants who
voluntarily took part in this study and to Trefloyne Manor for use of their fantastic facilities.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my close family and girlfriend for their
constant support throughout university.

Table of Contents
Page
List of tables and figures…………………………………………………………………. 5
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….6
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 7
Chapter 2: Review of Literature………………………………………………………….10
2.1 Verbal Data Collection Outside of Sport………………………………………..11
2.2 Verbal Data Collection in Tennis……………………………………………….12
2.3 Levels of Verbalisations………………………………………………………...14
2.4 Retrospective and Concurrent Reports………………………………………….15
2.5 An Application of Verbal Protocol Analysis in a Similar Golf Putting Task…..16
2.6 Gaze Behaviour in Aiming Tasks………………………………………………18
2.7 Rationale……………………………………………………………………….. 19
2.8 Aims and Hypothesis…………………………………………………………...19
Chapter 3: Methods……………………………………………………………………….21
3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………...21
3.2 Apparatus……………………………………………………………………….21
3.3 Task……………………………………………………………………………..22
3.4 Procedure………………………………………………………………………..22
3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………...25
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………27
4.1 Putt Duration, Putt Score, Glance Frequency and Mean Duration……………..27
4.2 Concurrent Verbal Report Results……………………………………………...29
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………………..35

5.1 Total Putt Assessment Duration……………………………………………………….. 35
5.2 Pre-Putt and Putt Phase Assessment Duration………………………………….36
5.3 Putt Score……………………………………………………………………….36
5.4 Glances during the Putt Phase of Preparation…………………………………..37
5.5 Pre-Putt Phase Verbalisations…………………………………………………..38
5.6 Putt Phase Verbalisations……………………………………………………….40
5.7 Limitations and Future Directions……………………………………………... 42
5.8 Practical Implications…………………………………………………………...44
Chapter 6: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….46
References………………………………………………………………………………….47
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………53
A. Research Participation Information Sheet………………………………………53
B. Informed Consent Sheet………………………………………………………...54
C. Data Collection Sheet………………………………………………………….. 55

List of Tables and Figures
Page
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA Analysis for Putting Variables…………... 28
Table 2: Difference in Total Putt Assessment Duration for Good Putts and Poor Putts….. 28
Figure 1: Mean Glance Frequency and Duration across Higher and Lower-Skilled
Golfers………………………………………………………………………………29
Figure 2: Inductive Content Analysis of Higher-Skilled Golfers during Pre-Putt Phase….30
Figure 3: Inductive Content Analysis of Lower-Skilled Golfers during Pre-Putt
Phase……………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Figure 4: Inductive Content Analysis of Higher-Skilled Golfers during Putt
Phase……………………………………………………………………………….. 33
Figure 5: Inductive Content Analysis of Lower-Skilled Golfers during Putt Phase……….33

Abstract
Previous research within sport has investigated the cognitive processes that occur during
problem solving tasks. However, little research has focused upon these processes during golf
putting. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to examine the cognitive strategies employed
by higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Identifying
differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt scores,
glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance were additional aims. Consequently,
a mixed methods design was incorporated. Higher (n = 10) and lower (n = 10) skilled golfers
performed 12 twenty-five foot putts from four different locations on a putting green whilst
thinking aloud. Cognitive processes were examined through protocol analysis. Verbal data
were collected through voice recordings, transcribed, coded and analysed. Long-range putting
performances were assessed by a scoring system. A video camera was implemented to gauge
putt assessment durations and to record the frequency and duration of glances towards the
target, following address. Quantitative putt variables were statistically analysed. Results
indicated that higher-skilled golfers expressed fewer mechanical thoughts and employed
additional cognitive and physical planning strategies. Furthermore, higher-skilled golfers
recorded significantly higher putt scores and shorter glances to target. No significant
differences across skill levels were found for putt assessment duration and glance frequency.
The prospective implications for lower-skilled golfers, coaches, applied sport psychologists
and golf academies are discussed.
Keywords: golf, putting, cognitive processes, skill levels.

Chapter 1: Introduction
There are many important elements within golf that must be effectively executed in
order to achieve high performances. Driving, iron play, pitching, chipping and putting are just
some of these fundamentals. Whilst experience, instruction and mastery of kinematics are
important in order to become an ‘expert’, the cognitive strategies employed in golf,
particularly during putting (Beilock, Wierenga, & Carr, 2002; Calmeiro & Tenenbaum,
2011), have attracted the attention of researchers.
To maintain high levels of sporting performance, one could incorporate a preparation
phase or pre-performance routine (PPR) (Boutcher, 1990). A PPR is a “sequence of task-
relevant thoughts and actions which an athlete engages in systematically prior to his or her
performance of a specific sports skill” (Moran, 1996, p. 177). Within golf, PPRs enable
performers to concentrate effectively (Boutcher, 1992; Cotterill, Sanders & Collins, 2010;
Shaw, 2002), overcome negatives, select appropriate motor schema and avoid excessive
attention to putt mechanics (Boutcher, 1992). The majority of psychological research has
suggested that better golfers display more consistent routine times (Crews & Boutcher, 1986;
Thomas & Over, 1994). Nevertheless, it has also been suggested that professional golfers’
routine times are sporadic, so PPRs tailored to an individual’s characteristics and
requirements could have greatest performance effects (Cotterill et al., 2010).
A golf putt involves striking the ball along the ground from a resting position into the
hole (Campbell & Moran, 2014). Putting is arguably the most crucial aspect within golf, as
between 41% (PGA Tour, 2011) and 43% (Pelz, 2000) of strokes are struck by the putter at
the professional level. Moreover, Alexander and Kern (2005) found that putting performance
was the biggest determinant of earnings on the PGA Tour. As putting is a self-paced skill,
execution is exclusively controlled by the golfer (Singer, 1988). Although putt kinematics
appears to be understood, there has been little attention within psychological literature to the

cognitive processes that occur during pre-putt preparation. A further understanding of these
processes could have benefits for both athletes and coaches. To analyse cognitive processes
during putting, verbal protocol analysis, identified by Ericsson and Simon (1984), is a proven
ecological method. This method involves recording verbalisations relating to cognitive
strategies in problem solving tasks (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). In the present study,
protocol analysis will be used to identify cognitive processes during long-range putting.
Although putt kinematics is an important facet of putting performance, performance is
dependent upon possession of accurate, perceptual judgement of the proposed path of the putt
(MacKenzie & Sprigings, 2005). This process of gathering environmental information and
preparation prior to skill execution varies considerably across golfers; between 30 and 120
seconds (Campbell, 2006). Despite the apparent importance for reading the green, putt
preparation has received little scientific attention.
Another aspect of putt preparation to be examined in this study is gaze behaviour, or
Quiet Eye (QE; Vickers, 1996). QE is defined as the “final fixation or tracking gaze located
on a specific location or object in the visuomotor workspace for a minimum of 100 ms”
(Vickers, 2007, p. 11). QE has been shown to underpin skilled sports performances (Causer,
Janelle, Vickers, & Williams, 2012), with longer durations characterising greater expertise
and accuracy (Vickers, 2007). This is thought to be because QE allows performers an
extended duration of planning, whilst also helping to minimise distractions (Moore, Vine,
Cooke, Ring & Wilson, 2012). Research on golf putting has found that fewer fixations
(Vickers, 1992; 2007) of longer durations (Wilson & Pearcy, 2009) were associated with
successful performances.
Previous research has investigated the cognitive processes that occur during problem
solving tasks, particularly within sport. However, little research has focused upon these
processes during golf putting. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to examine cognitive

strategies employed by higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation.
Identifying differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt
scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance were additional aims.
Findings from this study could identify ways to improve lower-skilled golfers’ long- range
putting and contribute towards improved policy within golf academies.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
It is apparent that verbal data are sought after amongst psychologists and other
scientific education researchers. In this instance, verbal data will be used to assess cognitive
processes during long-range golf putting. Ericsson and Simon (1984) stated that verbal
responses provide useful data across various paradigms. These talk-aloud protocols are being
increasingly implemented for reasoning and problem-solving tasks within science education
research (Lemke, 2012). One reason for collecting verbal data is an increasing trend towards
studying complex cognitive activities in practice or competition (Chi, 1997). Calmeiro and
Tenenbaum (2011) suggested that during performance-related tasks, cognitive processes can
be detected and elicited through verbal protocols. Following this, it is possible to identify
discrete types of cognitive, situational information (Ward, Suss, Eccles, Williams & Harris,
2011). Verbal protocol analysis can effectively identify how this complex information is
processed.
In this chapter I will initially summarise the use of verbal data collection across an
array of relevant contexts, including cognitive processes in law enforcement officers (Ward et
al., 2011) and chess players (Charness, 1981) during simulated tasks. Moreover, I shall
review a number of key papers that adopt verbal reports when assessing decision making
performance in tennis (McPherson & Thomas, 1989; McPherson 1999a, 1999b) and
volleyball (McPherson & Vickers, 2004). Following this, the three levels of verbalisations
identified by Ericsson and Simon (1984) shall be reviewed. In the next sub-section of this
chapter I will critically interpret concurrent and retrospective reports, with an aim to establish
the most appropriate type for this study. I shall then evaluate a similar study conducted by
Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) which focused on cognitive processes during golf putting. It
is important to learn from limitations of other studies in order to design a study that is as
rigorous and error free as possible with the available resources. Following this, I will

summarise QE research within sport, particularly focusing on studies concerning golf putting.
In the final sub-section, current research purposes shall be explained and hypotheses outlined.
2.1 Verbal Data Collection Outside of Sport
Verbal data has been successfully collected through reports and interviews in order to
assess cognitive processes across a variety of pressurised, decision-making situations.
Outside of sport, Ward et al. (2011) investigated cognitive performances of law
enforcement officers during a simulated decision making task. In the study, 14 skilled and 14
less-skilled officers undertook a variety of video scenarios to assess decision making abilities.
Unsurprisingly, skilled participants outperformed less-skilled participants across all 11 tasks,
displaying greater monitoring and prediction scores. Ward et al.’s (2011) study provided an
example of how verbal protocol analysis can be implemented; nevertheless, it may be
irrelevant to associate such conclusions to the current study. Firstly, it is clearly difficult to
link findings of a study concerning law enforcement officers to a study focusing on golf.
Secondly, the use of retrospective verbal reports may not provide sufficient data in the
present study. A detailed analysis of retrospective and concurrent reports will be valuable in
order to distinguish which report is most appropriate to this investigation.
Another study by Charness (1981) displayed the application of concurrent verbal
protocol analysis in chess. The investigation comprised of 34 individuals; split into skilled
and less-skilled groups. Participants were given four scenarios and were instructed to
verbalise their thoughts when calculating the next move. Conclusions from this study
indicated that skilled, and younger players searched more extensively for a solution to the
problem. Ultimately, quality of the selected move was exclusively affected by skill. The
implementation of concurrent, as opposed to retrospective reports makes this study more
relatable to the present. A more recent investigation conducted by Charness, Reingold,
Pomplun and Stampe (2001) has improved upon Charness’ (1981) study by implementing

eye-tracking software. This development allowed the researchers to track and analyse
detailed eye movements and in doing so, superseded the requirement for verbal reports.
Despite this methodological improvement, Charness et al.’s (2001) results also found that the
quality of the selected move was exclusively affected by skill. It may be difficult to associate
findings from an activity outside of sport, such as chess, to the present study. This could be
because chess players are heavily dependent upon excellent cognitive strategies, whereas
putting is also influenced by stroke kinematics and putting green conditions, etc.
2.2 Verbal Data Collection within Sport
McPherson and Thomas have conducted many studies within tennis that analyse
verbal data. One study involved assessing decision making performance between expert and
novice tennis players. In this study, four groups comprised of 10 individuals. Groups
contained experts who possessed tournament experience and high skill levels and also lower-
skilled ‘novice’ participants, who were without tournament experience (McPherson &
Thomas, 1989). In this study, verbal reports were collected through interviews, during and
after the task, rather than verbal protocols. One example of a question given by McPherson
and Thomas (1989) was “what were you thinking about when you were playing that point?”
(p.200). Subsequently, McPherson and Thomas (1989) found that experts had greater
decision-making abilities due to a more diverse knowledge structure. It may be difficult to
compare findings of McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) study to the present, due to the
implementation of interviews. Verbal data shall be collected through protocol analysis in the
current study. McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) findings shed light on the cognitive processes
that are present during a complex problem solving situation in sport. Nevertheless, as
McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) study focused specifically on youth tennis players and with
the current focus being on adult golfers, conclusions may be incomparable.

Another similar project by McPherson (1999b) investigated tactical differences to
problem representation and solution tasks between novice and expert female tennis players,
aged 18 to 22. The six experts were first team members of a National Collegiate Athletic
Association division 1A university tennis club, two of whom were College All Americans.
The six novices were undertaking a beginner course at the same university. All participants
were exposed to a situational interview following the task, answering questions like “what are
some of the things you think about before your serve?” (McPherson, 1999b, p.372). Findings
highlighted that expert tennis players displayed greater levels of tactical awareness and
demonstrated more comprehensive solutions to response execution. McPherson (1999b) also
found that experts possessed a greater ability to generate more specialised cognitive action
plans during competition. However, it may be unsuitable to generalise results from a study
focused on tennis to the present. As golf putting is a self-paced activity, results may be
incomparable to a sport like tennis, where pace is often determined by the opponent. It is also
difficult to associate results containing gender differences; McPherson’s (1999b) study
concerned female tennis players, whereas the present shall focus on male golfers.
Finally, it may be interesting to review a study conducted by McPherson and Vickers
(2004) which focused on cognitive processes in expert junior volleyball players. Of the five
male participants, two were members of the Canadian junior team, whilst the other three were
training with the team on a summer camp. Similar to the present study, McPherson and
Vickers’ (2004) investigation attempted to identify how problems are addressed through
verbal and gaze behaviours during a performance task. Verbal reports were gathered through
pre-task and concurrent interviews. McPherson and Vickers (2004) found that elite
performers possessed action plans that regulated the response; other studies have similar
results (French & McPherson, 1999, 2004). Furthermore, McPherson and Vickers (2004)
found that elite athletes were able to actively modify action plans throughout the task. Gaze

behaviours were collected through a combination of eye tracking software and verbal reports.
McPherson and Vicker’s (2004) results were inconclusive due to an insufficient number of
trials. It is also questionable whether a sample of only five participants can yield reliable
results. Moreover, McPherson and Vickers (2004) focused solely upon elite performers,
reducing the likelihood that results from the current study, involving club-level golfers, can
be linked.
All of the studies above produced purposeful results in their chosen domain.
However, some clear discrepancies make their respective findings inappropriate for direct
comparison with the present study.
2.3 Levels of Verbalisations
Before visiting the types of reports that are used to collect verbal data, it is important
to examine how information is processed and subsequently transferred by the brain into
measurable verbal responses.
The identification of different verbalisation levels was derived by Ericsson and Simon
(1984). The most basic verbalisation, or level one, occurs when “information is reproduced in
the form in which it was heeded” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984, p.16). So the information
collected by the individual is not transformed by the brain before being outspoken, it may be
an instinctive response. Beilock et al. (2002) disputed that verbalisations of highly automatic
tasks are plausible. For example, it may be irrelevant to verbalise putts of fewer than three
feet as individuals performing these semi-automatic tasks may have stored the required
information in the long-term memory.
Level two verbalisations involve reconstructing information from one form to
another; images to words for example. If information is not originally in verbal form, it needs
to be translated into it (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). In the present study, participants will be
required to perform level two verbalisations. This is often the case when analysing long-range

putts, as many experts appear to use visualisation techniques such as envisaging a line from
the ball into the hole.
Level three verbalisations are distinctive from level one and level two, as the
necessary information is present in the first two levels. Whereas at level three, further
information is required (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Ericsson and Simon (1984) illustrate that
level three verbalisations often require participants to focus on a specific aspect of a situation
or skill that they would not usually attend to, such as motor schemas. In regards to a putting
task, a researcher may ask participants to focus on keeping the putter face square to target
throughout the stroke, whereas golfers may usually avoid such mechanical thoughts. In the
present study, participants will not be tasked with level three verbalisations as they may be
too complex, consequently impeding performance (Ericsson & Simon, 1984).
2.4 Retrospective and Concurrent Reports
Two distinct types of reports within verbal protocol analysis must be reviewed in
order to conclude which type will provide most accurate results in this study.
A retrospective report is obtained by the researcher following the task, whereby,
participants are instructed to recall thoughts and experiences (Ericsson, 2002). Ericsson and
Simon (1984) suggested that these reports are ideally recorded immediately following the
task, as it is crucial that information is present in the short-term memory. Furthermore,
Ericsson (2002) highlights the importance of restricting information to memories that an
individual can certainly recall. Initially, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) suggested that a break
between the task and verbal collection made it unlikely that relevant information remained in
the short-term memory. However, Ericsson and Simon (1984) argued that these retrospective
verbal reports often yield the most accurate representations of memory organisations.
Moreover, the process of recalling one’s thoughts may strengthen the overall memory of an
activity (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Nevertheless, it is important to consider that memory

retrieval can generate errors, often occurring when similar memory structures in the long-
term memory are accessed instead of the short-term memories generated through the task.
Concurrent reports are verbalisations of cognitive processes generated by the
participant during a task (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). These concurrent protocols require
participants to think aloud whilst performing a task (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). While it
is plausible to suggest that thinking aloud could affect cognitive processes and performance
during tasks, Ericsson and Simon (1984) found no evidence to suggest that thinking aloud
produces different results. Furthermore, concurrent reports reveal unchanged cognitive
processes when problem solving, whereas other report types may cause a change (Ericsson &
Simon, 1984). A notable limitation however, is that participants take a significantly longer
period of time to complete tasks (Ericsson, 2002). Therefore, it may be valuable to include a
warm-up period in the present study, in line with Calmeiro and Tenenbaum’s (2011) study,
whereby, participants are educated with effective ways of verbalising thoughts.
It is clear that both concurrent and retrospective reports provide effective ways of
extracting verbal data during problem solving tasks. Nonetheless, in this study, it seems more
appropriate to implement concurrent verbal reports, as they appear to provide a more realistic
representation of the cognitive processes that are present during golf putting. Moreover, as
this study is likely to be affected by time constraints, verbalisations shall be generated
throughout the task, rather than upon completion. The implementation of concurrent reports
will enable data collection to be more time effective.
2.5 An Application of Verbal Protocol Analysis in a Similar Golf Putting Task
Verbal protocol analysis has been applied successfully in order to assess cognitions
when problem solving across many domains, yet surprisingly less so in golf.
In a recent investigation, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) assessed the cognitive
processes between novice and experienced golfers through a putting task. As the study is

relatively current and concerns some related variables it may be a valuable, relevant resource
through which to compare findings.
In the study, one sample comprised of three male, experienced golfers who possessed
11 to 15 years of competitive experience and held handicaps of scratch, 13 and 15. The
second sample comprised of three female, novice golfers that had between one and two
years’ experience, yet were without handicaps. During the task, participants performed
twenty 12’ putts from four different locations on a practice putting green. Participants were
asked to ‘think aloud’ from the green examination until the outcome of the putt;
verbalisations were recorded by a microphone situated on the participants. Verbal data were
quantitatively analysed by a coding scheme consisting of gathering information, planning,
technical instruction, description of outcome, diagnosis, mental readiness and reactive and
other comments (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). Categories like gathering information,
planning, technical instruction and mental readiness are applicable to the present study.
However, categories concerning putt outcome are irrelevant as the present study will focus
specifically on putt preparation. Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) found that experienced
golfers were more effective at assessing the green and diagnosing faults, whereas novice
participants produced greater amounts of technical instruction and mental preparation
(Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). These findings are similar to those identified by McCaffrey
and Orlick (1989) and Beilock, et al. (2002) when assessing expert and novice golfers.
The project conducted by Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) had some significant
methodological limitations that can be considered and subsequently improved in the present
study. Firstly, the small sample size may have contributed to some non-significant findings.
Secondly, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) stated that the inclusion of opposing gender
groups may have caused a confounding issue; hence the sole focus on male golfers in the
present study. Furthermore, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) classified some participants as

‘novices’ despite participation in golf for over a year. As a result, a more specific focus on
participant classification is required. For example, it would have been beneficial for Calmeiro
and Tenenbaum (2011) to define a ‘novice’ golfer.
The present study shall adopt a similar methodological approach to that of Calmeiro
and Tenenbaum’s (2011) study, whereby the implementation of concurrent verbal protocol
analysis is used to assess cognitive processes during golf putting. Therefore, it may be
appropriate to compare present findings to those of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011).
2.6 Gaze Behaviour in Aiming Tasks
In the present study, I shall be investigating the frequency and duration of glances
away from the golf ball, towards the target, that higher and lower-skilled golfers demonstrate.
These glances will be examined during the putt-phase of preparation, after golfers have
addressed the ball and are ready to execute the putt.
To focus and perform optimally, one must attempt to control visual gaze. This is
particularly true in sports skills requiring optimal timing, precise cue selection and focus for
long durations (Vickers, 2011). Moreover, to hit a target accurately, one should control their
gaze so that final fixations are on the target for a sufficient duration (Vickers & Williams,
2007).
Alongside basketball free-throw shooting, golf putting is an extensively used task in
QE investigations (Panchuk & Vickers, 2013). Research by Vickers (2007) suggested that
golfers can fixate on the top or back of the golf ball in order to implement QE effectively.
Alternatively, golfers can fixate on a specific area, behind or directly at the hole in order to
enhance putting performance (Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker & Savelsbergh, 2009). Whilst Binsh
et al.’s (2009) study produced interesting results; findings are only applicable to novice
golfers. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to relate findings to the current study, where
glances are examined across skill levels. Eye movements have also been observed in

university golfers during putt preparation (Wilson & Pearcy, 2009) and in expert and novice
golfers as they stood over the ball, preparing to strike putts (Vickers 1992, 2007). Wilson and
Pearcy (2009) found that longer periods of fixations were associated with successful putting;
however, such findings should be carefully accepted as results were based on just six
participants. Conversely, Vickers (1992, 2007) found that expert golfers displayed fewer
fixations per putt, on both occasions. Nevertheless, Vickers’ (1992, 2007) studies have two
key limitations (Campbell & Moran, 2014). Firstly, analysis was based on a small sample
comprising of 12 participants. Furthermore, participants were defined as experts, however,
their mean handicap was 6.2. A handicap of four is required before a golfer is deemed
sufficiently expert to turn professional. In addition, Vickers’ (1992, 2007) studies concerned
fixations on the ball, whereas the present study is examining glances towards the hole.
2.7 Rationale
Having addressed key themes associated with verbal data collection, it is clearly
important to understand how verbalisations contribute to this study. It was also beneficial to
review retrospective and concurrent reports in order to gain an understanding of when each
report is most effective. Following this, it was concluded that concurrent reports are to be
implemented in the current study. Having also reviewed the literature, many studies within
different parameters have effectively incorporated verbal protocol techniques to identify
cognitive processes when problem solving. However, there has been a limited scientific
exploration of these processes through verbal protocol analysis in golf. Moreover, research
has yet to assess cognitive processes in higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range
putting and so it is a viable avenue in which to undertake research.
2.8 Aims and Hypothesis
It is hoped that by identifying where cognitive differences lie between higher and
lower-skilled golfers when reading long-range putts, that more effective PPRs for amateur

golfers can be developed and applied accordingly. Findings could also result in a greater
focus on reading long-range putts, whereby golfers are psychologically educated throughout
academy programmes. The research hypothesis for this study is that higher-skilled
participants will verbalise more thoughts related to both gathering information and planning,
will record greater putt assessment durations, will demonstrate less frequent, longer glances
to target and will record greater putt scores.

Chapter 3: Method
3.1 Participants
20 male white-British golfers, with ages of 18 to 61 (M = 39.85, SD = 13.88)
participated in a golf putting task. Participants had diverse levels of competitive golf
experience ranging from a year to 37 years (M = 13.15, SD = 11.00). After entering expected
means and standard deviations for key processes and outcome dependent variables (i.e., putt
assessment duration), a sample size of 10 participants per group was found to yield power
>.80. Accordingly, 10 participants were recruited for each of the two groups. The first
comprised of 10 higher-skilled golfers with active Council of National Golf Unions
(CONGU) handicaps of 5.4 or below (M = 3.5, SD = 1.8), which had competed at senior
county level (n = 2) and national level (n = 1). The other sample contained 10 lower-skilled
golfers with handicaps of 19.5 or above (M = 23.1, SD = 2.5).
3.2 Apparatus
Subjects were requested to use their personal putters (M length = 35 inches), with an
aim to create conditions that were comfortable to them. The use of white Titleist Pro V1 golf
balls was a standard control measure. A practice putting green at a local golf course compiled
of Native Annual Meadow, Native Fescue and straight bent grasses and portrayed an accurate
representation of on-course conditions. A plastic disk with a diameter of four and a quarter
inches (standard measurement of a golf hole) remained in a solitary position throughout the
task. An Olympus voice recorder, positioned in the trouser pocket of each participant,
connected to Apple iPod in-ear headphones, through which the integrated microphone
accurately recorded participant verbalisations throughout the task. A Panasonic Lumix video
camera analysed the frequency and duration of glances towards the target. The camera was
positioned on a tripod in two standardised locations: behind the hole as they read the putt, and
face on to the golfer at address. Additionally, ball markers were placed at diameters of one,

two and three foot circling the disk. Golf tees were placed into the ground to mark the four
different putting locations on the green.
3.3 Task
Participants performed a total of twelve 25’ putts on a putting green while thinking
aloud. Participants were asked to verbalise all thoughts from placing the ball marker behind
the golf ball to putt strike. Three putts were taken from four different marked locations; each
location was marked at a distance of 25’ from the edge of the disk. Two of the four were
straight putts, where position A was straight uphill and position C straight downhill. The
other two were sloping putts; position B incorporated a right-to-left break and position D
incorporated a left-to-right break. 12 putts were separated into three sets of four putts. The
first and third sets consisted of participants moving from positions A to D accordingly.
During the second set, participants were asked to progress through positions A, D, C and B.
During this task, participants were prompted to keep talking if they remained quiet for over
10 seconds (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011; Nicholls & Poleman, 2008).
In the present study, five dependent variables were measured: participant
verbalisations, putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean
duration per glance. Dependent variables were collected for two independent groups,
comprising of higher and lower-skilled golfers.
3.4 Procedure
The field-based investigation took place at a golf course; a facility that the researcher
was able to obtain straightforward access to. To proceed, the researcher required written
permission from the club. This was subsequently gained through a letter of approval from a
senior member of the management team. As the task required a large area of the putting
green, it was mutually agreed between the researcher and the club that any data collection
would take place at quiet periods, hence minimising any inconveniences to other golfers. The

recruitment process itself incorporated purposive and convenience sampling, and as the study
required golfers with specific handicap criteria, these individuals were firstly identified and
purposely selected from the golf club. Due to time constraints, other individuals that
demonstrated an interest to participate and possessed handicaps that met the criteria were
subsequently included. Once contact details were acquired, date and time slots were
organised with each participant. Prior to the task, a pilot study was implemented to test and
adjust the proposed methods (Gratton & Jones, 2010). This enabled the researcher to practice
recording and analysing data of a Professional Golfers Association (PGA) professional. In
addition, the pilot study provided an insight into the time taken to complete the putting task,
allowing the researcher to plan sessions and inform participants accurately. It also certified
two appropriate camera positions on the putting green and the voice recorder location.
Prior to the task, a research participation information sheet (see Appendix A) was
provided to each participant via email. This outlined research purposes, identified why
participants were selected and highlighted researcher and participant roles in the study.
Additionally, potential risks were presented along with associated safety guidelines.
Participants were reinforced of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without
reason and consequence. Following this, contact details of the researcher were stated.
On arrival, the researcher provided an informed consent sheet (see Appendix B) to
each participant, where they were required to complete research specific information
including handicap and competitive golf experience. The participant’s signature of agreement
to take part under their own consent was also compulsory. The researcher then explained the
task in detail for five minutes, whilst answering questions. Each participant was reminded
that they should verbalise all thoughts during the preparation and execution of 12 long-range
putts. At this point, participants were asked to place the voice recorder in their trouser pocket,
ensuring that the microphone was in a position to obtain verbal data. It was emphasised,

based on level two verbalisations (Ericsson & Simon, 1984) that participants must simply say
what they were thinking throughout the trial. The following instructions were given to
participants prior to the task:
Please verbally state everything that you are thinking, from the start of the putt
assessment until the strike. You do not need to explain these thoughts. Please
envisage yourself as being alone and so conduct the putt assessment as you usually
would. There is no correct way of doing this. Please ignore that fact that I will be
moving to various positions with the video camera and instead focus upon these
thoughts.
Participants were then asked to undertake a short warm-up period of approximately 10
minutes. Based on the study of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), the warm-up was split in to
two periods. The first required participants to solely practice their putting from a variety of
locations and distances. The second period involved the rehearsal of verbalising thoughts
whilst putting. During this period, it was essential to offer constructive feedback to
participants in order to enhance verbalisation quality (Ward et al., 2011).
During the task, participant verbalisations were recorded by a voice recorder. This
presented an insight into the processes that are present in the cognitive processor. A video
camera was implemented to examine the frequency and duration of glances away from the
ball and towards the disk. The video camera was also used to identify the time taken from the
start of putt preparation until the putting action was initiated. This was a fundamental
variable, as the time taken to read a putt may be associated with the putt outcome. For each
putt, the resultant distance from the ball to the edge of the disk was assessed by a scoring
system: 4 points were awarded for holing the putt, 3 points for within a foot, 2 points for
within two feet and 1 point for within three feet. This assessed long-range putting
performance across skill levels; current scientific literature has not investigated this variable.

3.5 Data Analysis
Five dependent variables were appropriately grouped into verbal statements, putt
scores, putt assessment durations, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance.
Verbal data was subjected to verbal protocol analysis (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). To
best analyse verbal data, participant’s verbal reports were firstly transcribed verbatim.
Following this, an external judge also transcribed 12 putts from two participants in order to
test reliability. Reliability of transcripts was estimated by the equation: na / (na+nb) × 100,
where na is the number of agreements and nb is the number of disagreements (Calmeiro &
Tenenbaum, 2011). Inter rater reliability was resultantly greater than accepted reliability
coefficients of 70% (Frey, Botan & Kreps, 2000) and 80% (Neuendorf, 2002). The meaning
unit was defined as any relevant quote pertaining to different aspects of putt preparation;
irrelevant verbalisations were removed from the data set (in line with Nicholls & Poleman,
2008). Following this, an inductive content analysis was taken to discover and subsequently
organise reoccurring themes into meaningful categories across skill levels (Patton, 2002).
Total putt assessment duration was measured from the instant at which participants
placed a ball marker behind the ball until the start of the putting action. Total putt assessment
duration was further separated into pre-putt and putt-phases. The pre-putt phase was
measured between the instant of marking the golf ball, until the putter head was grounded
behind the ball. Whereas the putt-phase was measured from the moment the putter head was
grounded, until the putting action was initiated. Windows Movie Maker, a programme
operating at a frequency of 30 frames per second, was used to calculate assessment durations.
Total putt assessment durations were calculated for both ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts. A ‘good’
putt was defined as one that finished within 2’ of the disk, whereas a ‘poor’ putt finished
outside of 2’. Therefore, total putt assessment durations associated with putt scores of 4, 3
and 2 were compared to durations with putt scores of 1 and 0. The frequency of glances and

mean duration per glance when addressing the ball were also identified through Windows
Movie Maker. To calculate glance durations, start (first frame where focus deviated from the
ball towards the target) and finish points (first frame where focus returned to the ball) were
identified. Microsoft Excel was used to determine glance frequency and duration prior to
statistical analysis.
Putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration
per glance variables were statistically analysed by IBM SPSS 20 for windows statistical
package. A MANOVA analysis of these dependent variables identified differences between
higher and lower-skilled groups. In addition, an independent samples t-test was conducted to
identify a difference in total putt assessment duration between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts.

Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Putt Duration, Putt Score, Glance Frequency and Mean Duration
Initial statistical data screening indicated that there were no univariate or multivariate
outliers. To determine whether there were any significant differences in putt assessment
durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance between
higher and lower-skilled golfers, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was
conducted. An independent samples t-test was also used to identify a difference in total putt
assessment duration between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts.
Hotelling’s T statistic was used to compare two levels of an independent variable (i.e.
skill level). There was a significant difference between higher and lower-skilled golfers
across putting variables, T = 2.38, F (4, 15) = 8.34, p <.01. The univariate output revealed
that higher-skilled golfers had significantly greater putt scores (M = 20.90, SD = 2.85) than
lower-skilled golfers (M = 13.10, SD = 2.73), F (1, 18) = 39.17, p <.001. The eta squared
value of .69 indicated a large effect size. Furthermore, Figure 1 displays a significant
difference in mean glance duration, F (1, 18) = 10.30, p < 0.01, with higher-skilled golfers
having on average, a shorter mean glance duration (M = 1.00, SD = 0.37) than less-skilled
golfers (M = 1.87, SD = 0.77). An eta squared value of .37 suggested a moderate effect size.
There were no significant differences across skill levels for glance frequency per putt, total
putt assessment duration and pre-putt and putt phase assessment durations, p >.05. In
addition, there was no significant difference in total putt assessment duration between ‘good’
and ‘poor’ putts (see Table 2).

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA Analysis for Putting Variables of Higher-Skilled (A) (n
= 10) and Lower-Skilled (B) (n = 10) Golfers
Putting Variable M SD F (1,18) Partial  2
Total Putt Assessment Duration (s) A 33.63 5.55
1.21
2.69
2.13
.06
.12
.16
Pre-Putt Phase Assessment Duration
(s)
Putt Phase Assessment Duration (s)
B
A
B
A
B
28.41
27.31
20.22
6.41
8.21
13.94
4.74
12.82
2.71
2.82
Putt Score A 20.90 2.85
39.17*** .69
B 13.10 2.73
Hotelling’s T = 2.38, F (4, 15) = 8.34, p <.01
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Table 2
Difference in Total Putt Assessment Duration for Good Putts (n = 98) and Poor Putts (n =
99)
Putt Outcome M SD t
Good Putt 23.09 7.66
0.58
Poor Putt 22.40 8.74
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 1. Mean glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance between higher and
lower-skilled golfers. (n = 10) in both conditions.
4.2 Concurrent Verbal Report Results
128 raw quotes were identified and following inductive content analysis, recurring
themes were separated according to pre-putt and putt phases of preparation. Themes
associated with pre-putt and putt phases for both groups will be addressed individually in the
following paragraphs. Initial 1st
order themes and further categorised 2nd
order themes are
displayed alongside raw data examples.
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
Higher-Skilled Lower-Skilled
MeanDurationperGlance(s)
MeanGlanceFrequencyperPutt
Skill Level of Golfer
Glance Frequency per Putt Mean Duration per Glance (s)

Raw Data
”Read the line”
“Have a little look at the line”
“Get a feel for the level of the
land”
“Gauge the distance first”
“This one definitely breaks a little
bit at the start and then flattens
out nearer the hole”
“Just looks a right hand break, a
tiny bit”
“Little bit icy on top”
“The greens are a little bit frosted,
so they’re running a bit slower”
“I can see the line”
“Then I see the line”
“Going to pick a little spot”
“I always pick a spot about a foot
in front of the ball”
“Just concentrate on the pace”
“Hit this one a bit harder”
“Fancy this one”
“Feeling good on this putt”
“Align the logo up with the line I
want the putt to start on”
“Line the maker’s name up with
the line I want it to go on”
“Couple of practice swings”
“Take my three practice strokes”
1st
Order Theme
Reading the Line
(n = 6)
Initial Putt Evaluation
(n = 5)
Gathering
Environmental
Information (n = 10)
Identification of
Environmental
Conditions (n = 6)
Identifying a Visual
Line (n = 7)
Spot (n = 6)
Use of Planning
Instruction (n = 9)
Mental Readiness
(n = 3)
Aligning Ball Logo to
Target (n = 4)
Use of Practice Strokes
(n = 7)
2nd
Order Theme
Reading the
Green
Mental
Preparation
Physical
Preparation
Figure 2. The inductive content analysis of higher-skilled golfers during the pre-putt phase of
preparation, showing recurring themes that resulted from raw data. (n =) represents the
number of participants that made comments associated with 1st
order themes.

Raw Data
“Just work out the level of the
land”
“Go behind the ball, look at the
hole and see which way the green
is lying”
“It looks like there is a right to left
slope”
“I’d say this is straighter. Light
break to the left”
“With the condition of the green
and the temperatures”
“A bit wet down here”
“I’m picking a spot”
“I’ve got a little marker”
“So I need to be aiming to the right
of the target”
“So, again I’m going to give this
one a little bit more”
“So take a straight line as if it is
coming out of the hole”
“Imagine the shot”
“Lined up lovely”
“Right this is going in”
1st
Order Theme
Initial Putt
Evaluation (n = 5)
Gathering
Environmental
Information (n = 9)
Identification of
Environmental
Conditions (n = 3)
Spot (n = 3)
Use of Planning
Instruction (n = 7)
Visualisation (n = 3)
Mental Readiness
(n = 4)
2nd
Order Theme
Reading the
Green
Mental
Preparation
Figure 3. The inductive content analysis of lower-skilled golfers during the pre-putt phase of
order themes.
Both groups implemented a number of similar strategies during the pre-putt
phase of preparation, including three themes related to reading the green (see Figures 2 & 3).
More specifically, a similar proportion of both samples reported thoughts relating to initial
putt evaluation and a large proportion expressed verbalisations relating to identifying

environmental conditions. A greater proportion of higher-skilled golfers reported
verbalisations regarding gathering environmental information (n = 6). Additionally, a further
three themes were identified in association with mental preparation. Within this, more higher-
skilled participants (n = 6) reported thoughts regarding the identification of a visual spot, for
example “I always pick a spot about a foot in front of the ball” (see Figure 2), and “I’m
picking a spot” (see Figure 3). Moreover, similar proportions of both groups demonstrated
thoughts about planning instruction and mental readiness prior to address.
Higher and lower-skilled golfers also applied some dissimilar strategies during the
pre-putt stage of preparation (see Figures 2 & 3). Whilst reading the green, six higher-skilled
golfers reported verbalisations relating to reading the line, for example “have a little look at
the line” (see Figure 2); there was less evidence of such implementation by lower-skilled
golfers. Secondly, during mental preparation, most higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) verbalised
comments with respect to identifying a visual line towards the target, for example one
participant stated “I can see the line” (see Figure 2). Lower-skilled golfers did not tend to
demonstrate these thoughts. Nevertheless, within mental preparation, lower-skilled
participants expressed thoughts relating to implementing visualisation strategies, such as “so
take a straight line as if it is coming out of the hole” (see Figure 3). Moreover, Figure 2
demonstrates that higher-skilled golfers verbalised thoughts associated with physical
preparation. Within this 2nd
order theme, higher-skilled participants incorporated two physical
strategies. Most higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) talked about the application of practice strokes.
Verbalisations relating to aligning the ball logo to target were less well represented (n = 4).
Unlike the higher-skilled, lower-skilled participants did not frequently demonstrate
cognitions concerning these physical strategies prior to address.

Raw Data
“I take one look, two looks down
the line. The third look down the
line to the finish point”
“Look at the hole once”
“Then, putt”
“Fire!”
1st
Order Theme
Visualisation of
Line/Target (n = 7)
Use of Cues (n = 6)
2nd
Order Theme
Mental
Preparation
Figure 4. The inductive content analysis of higher-skilled golfers during the putt phase of
order themes
Raw Data
“Got the ball offset towards the
front of my stance”
“Nice straight arms, swing like a
pendulum”
“Visualising the putt, thinking it’s
going in the hole”
“Look at the hole, look at my
target”
“Feed it down to the hole”
“Here we go”
“Try and line the back of my putter
to where I’m going”
“Place the putter behind, straight
line”
1st
Order Theme
Use of Technical
Instruction (n = 5)
Visualisation of
Line/Target
(n = 4)
Use of Cues
(n = 5)
Aligning Putter to
Target (n = 4)
2nd
Order Theme
Mental
Preparation
Physical
Preparation
Figure 5. The inductive content analysis of lower-skilled golfers during the putt phase of
order themes.

As can be seen in Figures 4 and 5, both groups implemented a number of similar
strategies during the putt phase of preparation, including two themes relating to mental
preparation. More specifically, both groups reported thoughts relating to visualisation of line
or target, although more higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) expressed such thoughts. Additionally,
both higher-skilled (n = 6) and lower-skilled (n = 5) participants used cue words, such as
“fire!” (see Figure 4) and “feed it down to the hole” (see Figure 5).
There is also indication that higher and lower-skilled participants implement a number
of different strategies during the putt-phase of preparation. Within mental preparation, lower-
skilled golfers (n = 5) verbalised thoughts involving technical instruction, for example “nice
straight arms, swing like a pendulum” (see Figure 5); higher-skilled golfers reported fewer
verbalisations. Unlike the higher-skilled, lower-skilled participants recurrently verbalised
cognitions associated with physical preparation and in particular, aligning putter to target. For
example, one participant stated “try and line the back of my putter to where I’m going” (see
Figure 5).

Chapter 5: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine cognitive strategies employed by higher and
lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Identifying differences between skill
levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and
mean duration per glance were additional aims. To accurately analyse data, results were
organised into pre-putt and putt phases of preparation. In line with limited research focused
on golf putting (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011), it was firstly hypothesised that higher-skilled
golfers would express more thoughts relating to both gathering environmental information
and planning. It was secondly hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would spend longer
assessing each putt, would record greater putt scores and would implement less frequent,
longer glances. Following analysis and comparison of findings between skill levels, some
significant results were highlighted. From these findings, one can suggest ways of improving
putt preparation and long-range putting performance.
5.1 Total Putt Assessment Duration
Following statistical analysis, a non-significant difference was identified for total putt
assessment duration. Therefore, the hypothesis, advocating that higher-skilled golfers would
spend longer assessing putts, was rejected. This result showed that the time spent assessing
the putt (from marking the ball, to the moment the putting action was initiated) was not
influenced by skill. Putt assessment duration within golf has received little attention within
literature. An explanation for this could be that researchers have been more concerned with
putt kinematics and the effect of pressure on putting performance. Nonetheless, this result
questions the findings of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), who found that experienced
players spent longer assessing environmental conditions and planning the putt than beginners.

5.2 Pre-Putt and Putt Phase Assessment Duration
Total putt assessment duration was further separated into pre-putt and putt-phases for
statistical analysis. The pre-putt phase measured the duration between the instant of marking
the ball until the putter head was grounded behind the ball, with the putt-phase measuring the
duration from the moment the putter head was grounded, until the putting action was
initiated. Following analysis, no significant differences were observed between skill groups
for both phases. Results suggest that both higher and lower-skilled golfers spend a similar
amount of time assessing the green prior to address, as well as when they are in position to
strike the putt.
As no differences between skill levels were identified for total, pre-putt and putt phase
assessment durations, it also appeared that putt assessment duration had no impact upon
putting performance. More specifically, no significant difference in total putt assessment
duration between ‘good’ putts and ‘poor’ putts was found. Although researchers have yet to
investigate this aspect of preparation, the present finding suggests no prescriptive
recommendation for how long golfers should assess putts in order to improve performance. It
may be personal preference, whereby, golfers putt best following a preferred duration of
assessment.
5.3 Putt Score
In this study, participants performed a putting task which objectively assessed long-
range putting performance. Following statistical analysis, higher-skilled golfers reported
significantly greater putt scores and ultimately displayed greater long-range putting
performances. This could be due to a superior ability to read the green, more detailed
planning or simply, more efficient stroke kinematics as a result of practice and professional
supervision. Future research could therefore attempt to identify the greatest predictor of
skilled long-range putting performance.

This result may come as no great surprise due to the composition of two different skill
groups. In golf, superior putting is regarded as a fundamental aspect of skilled performances.
For example, some of the world’s best golfers are also great putters, such as Graeme
McDowell, who is currently 28th
in the Official World Golf Ranking (OWGR, 2015), was
ranked as the best putter over the 2014 PGA Tour season based on the ‘Total Putting’ statistic
(PGA Tour, 2015). This statistic incorporates all facets of putting and is therefore able to
identify the most efficient putters. Nevertheless, great putting does not solely guarantee a low
stroke average. Greg Chalmers for example was ranked second based on the same statistic,
yet is presently ranked 179th on the OWGR. Whilst many elite golfers compensate with other
superior statistics such as driving distance or accuracy, putting performance may be a sound
predictor of skilled golf. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would record
greater putt scores, the research hypothesis was subsequently accepted.
5.4 Glances during the Putt Phase of Preparation
The analysis of glances during address revealed a non-significant difference between
skill levels for glance frequency. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would
conduct fewer glances to target, the research hypothesis was rejected. Findings suggest that
the frequency at which an individual glances at the target prior to skill execution may not be
determined by skill level. The ‘power’ of the study design may have contributed towards this
non-significant result. To increase the ‘power’, the researcher could have increased the
sensitivity of the test, the sample size and the number of putts. Following this, one is unable
to support the findings of Vickers (1992, 2007) who found that expert golfers displayed
significantly fewer fixations to the target than lesser-skilled golfers. One is also unable to
support the findings of Campbell and Moran (2014) who found that professional golfers
displayed less fixations to target than club-level golfers. Nevertheless, higher-skilled golfers

in the present study were not of a similar professional standard and so results must be
cautiously compared.
Higher-skilled golfers displayed on average, shorter mean glance durations than
lower-skilled golfers. This meant higher-skilled golfers performed shorter glances away from
the ball, towards the target. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would conduct
longer glances to target, the research hypothesis was subsequently rejected. A possible
explanation is that higher-skilled golfers may have possessed a more automated putting
stroke, whereas lesser-skilled required longer glances to generate improved perception and
feel. This result is surprising as it appears to dispute the majority of research, in particular,
those who found that expert players spent significantly longer focusing on the target prior to
execution than novice golfers did (Campbell & Moran, 2014; Wilson & Pearcy, 2009).
5.5 Pre-Putt Phase Verbalisations
Verbalisations were transcribed verbatim and an inductive analysis was taken to
organise recurring themes into meaningful categories. The most common verbalisations
related to gathering environmental information and planning instruction. Whilst there were a
number of common findings between groups, higher-skilled golfers employed additional
cognitive planning strategies, such as reading the line and identifying a visual line towards
the target.
Following inductive content analysis of verbalisations during the pre-putt phase of
preparation, findings highlighted some different approaches between groups. Higher-skilled
participants reported more verbalisations that related to reading the green and more
specifically, identifying a visual line towards the target. This implied that higher-skilled
golfers often attempted to identify a line from the ball into the hole. Following initial green
evaluation, the higher-skilled implemented additional planning strategies involving the
visualisation of a perceived fixed path from the ball to target. This finding supports the view

of McCaffrey and Orlick (1989) who stated that higher-skilled golfers incorporated more
detailed approaches to pre-shot planning prior to putt execution.
Some lower-skilled participants also expressed thoughts relating to visualisation
strategies, suggesting that they are also able to perform visualisations during putt preparation.
Although one lower-skilled participant demonstrated detailed verbalisations with regards to
visualisation, generally, statements lacked clarity compared to those expressed by higher-
skilled golfers. This may be due to fewer available cognitive resources throughout analysis.
In addition, solely higher-skilled golfers verbalised thoughts associated with physical
preparation, such aligning the ball logo to target and the application of practice strokes during
the pre-putt phase of preparation. It is perhaps surprising that only higher-skilled golfers
displayed these strategies, particularly thoughts regarding practice swings. The reason being
that lower-skilled golfers are often associated with being less automated and would therefore
attempt to compensate by implementing such pre-putt strategies. Whilst there is a clear verbal
demonstration of physical strategies prior to address, it must be considered that lower-skilled
golfers could have applied these strategies sub-consciously.
In the present study, results also indicated that higher and lower-skilled golfers
expressed many similar thoughts. Whilst reading the green, both groups reported thoughts
relating to an initial putt evaluation. For example, a higher-skilled participant stated “just
thinking how it’s going to change over the course of the putt”, whilst a lower-skilled
participant said, “just work out the level of the land”. This suggests that all golfers possess an
ability to weigh up long-range putts. Yet, previous research on putting appears to have
overlooked, or categorised this planning strategy differently. For example, such
verbalisations may have been included in the ‘gathering information’ category within
Calmeiro and Tenenbaum’s (2011) investigation.

Both groups also reported thoughts relating to identifying environmental conditions,
gathering environmental information and the identification of visual spots. Again, findings
indicate that amateur golfers, irrespective of skill level, are able to pick out important
information from the putting green. Whilst previous research has overlooked the
identification of environmental conditions and visual spots as aspects of putt preparation,
results appear to dispute that more expert and experienced golfers tend to report greater
attention to pre-shot planning and assessing (Beilock, et al., 2002; Calmeiro & Tenenbaum,
2011; McCaffrey & Orlick, 1989).
Both groups also expressed verbalisations linked to planning instruction, making
comments like “hit this one a bit harder” and “I’m going to give this one a little bit more”.
This result suggests that after assessing the green, both groups would incorporate planning
strategies as part of their preparation. Therefore, findings appear to question studies that
found the focus of more expert and experienced golfers’ verbalisations tended to focus on
planning to a greater extent than less expert (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2001) and
inexperienced golfers (Beilock et al., 2002).
A final similarity between skill groups was the reoccurrence of verbalisations
regarding mental readiness. For example, one participant stated “feeling good on this putt”
and another “right this one is going in”. Comments like these could be important to both
higher and lower-skilled golfers in order to endorse inner confidence prior to putt execution.
This result supports the findings of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), who also identified a
non-significant difference between experienced and novice golfers.
5.6 Putt-Phase Verbalisations
Following inductive content analysis, clear differences between skill levels were
found. Firstly, lower-skilled golfers verbalised a greater amount of thoughts relating to
technical instruction. So, once lower-skilled participants had addressed the ball, they

expressed thoughts associated with mechanical aspects of putt execution. This result supports
the majority of research focused upon golf putting, which stated that lower-skilled performers
adopted a step by step approach to skill execution (Anderson, 1982; Beilock et al., 2002;
Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). Although some higher-skilled golfers expressed
verbalisations linked to mechanical aspects of the skill, it was evident that the lower-skilled
verbalised considerably more of these thoughts. It could be that higher-skilled golfers possess
a greater motor control automaticity and so often perform the skill without much conscious
thought. On the other hand, lesser-skilled golfers may require greater attention to the
kinematic facets of a putt.
The researcher also found that higher and lower-skilled golfers expressed similar
thoughts during the putt-phase of preparation. Emergent themes that related to visualising a
line to target and the implementation of cues were identified. Findings suggest that once the
putter had been grounded behind the ball, both groups attempted to visualise the line of the
putt in to the hole. Thoughts are in line with Pelz (2000), who regarded aim line as the most
common strategy for putting. Although, he subsequently found that golfers putt most
effectively when they identify a precise spot where the break occurs. Following this, results
from the present study found that golfers used cues to trigger execution. Although the
application of cues has yet to be investigated across skill levels in golf, it may come as a
surprise that lower-skilled golfers also applied this strategy. The reason being is that cue
words are often suggested psychological interventions, associated with positive performance
effects (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Hardy, 2006; Jackson & Wilson, 1999). Nevertheless,
it is encouraging that lower-skilled golfers in particular applied strategies that have been
heavily linked with performance improvements. Nonetheless, it may be the case that the
implementation of cues was due to the nature of the task, whereby golfers were asked to

verbalise all thoughts. Therefore, future studies could investigate the effect of cues on long-
range putting performance, particularly across skill levels.
5.7 Limitations and Future Directions
Although the study was carefully designed, a number of methodological issues were
identified. Firstly, this investigation was conducted under time constraints, resulting in a
relatively small sample size; a potential explanation for non-significant findings. As a result,
it may be difficult to generalise results from the present study to a wider population. To
improve the reliability of the study, a challenge for future researchers would be to recruit a
larger sample comprising of professional golfers and lesser-skilled club golfers with similar
handicaps to those in this study. Alternatively future studies could focus on additional skill
levels; for example, recruiting samples consisting of CONGU category one, two, three and
four golfers.
Secondly, the present study did not consider order effects; thus an order of putt
location from which participants were asked to putt from was the same for each participant.
Although order effects may not have influenced presents results, future studies should
counterbalance the putt location order (in line with Thomas, Neumann & Hoosper, 2008) in
order to yield more statistically sound data. Future researchers may also wish to increase the
number of putt locations and keep the number of putts undisclosed from participants in an
effort to maintain participant focus for each putt.
The availability of equipment was also a limitation. Firstly, the application of a
standard video camera proved unreliable; technical issues meant that 22 putts were not
analysed. Furthermore, the position of the camera on a tripod made it difficult to accurately
capture head and putter movements, so glance analysis was often subjective. Future studies
should strongly consider using eye tracking or other head mounted cameras to best analyse
glances. This would depict an accurate identification of eye fixations during putt assessment.

Moreover, further research could investigate the speed at which golfers of different skill
levels glance towards the target, so whether different skill levels tend to glance quickly and
sporadically, slowly and analytically or whether glance implementation, is of personal
preference. Following this, researchers could identify whether a correlation exists between
glance speed and long-range putting performance.
A further criticism is that participants were required to wear headphones throughout
the task; such equipment was not representative of a golfing environment. Although the
researcher ensured equipment was not restrictive, golfers are not accustomed to wearing such
equipment. The warm-up period helped to ensure participants were comfortable prior to the
task; future studies may also incorporate a warm-up period. Voice recordings also lacked
clarity at times which meant that unwanted noise, such as wind and body movements, may
have caused transcribing errors.
A further limitation was the reliability of the coding procedure. As the researcher
conducted an inductive content analysis, results are subjective. Therefore, it would be
beneficial to develop a reliable coding scheme that encompasses aspects of putt preparation.
To do this effectively, future studies should consider implementing trained coders that are
familiar with long-range putt preparation strategies. Nevertheless, it appears that the
strategies observed throughout this study, whilst planning a putt, are consistent with the
limited research that currently exists.
Finally, the variable weather and putting green conditions were another limitation of
this study. As the study was conducted under time constraints, data collection took place
during winter months and this meant coinciding with adverse weather conditions.
Subsequently, putting green conditions were inconsistent, perhaps affecting putting
performances. Although it is challenging to conduct a study with consistently fair weather
and course conditions, it is recommended that future researchers conduct a similar study

during summer months. Friendlier weather and putting green conditions may yield different
results; as faster, truer greens would enhance the severity of undulations on the putting green,
increasing the dependency on gathering environmental information and subsequent planning.
5.8 Practical Implications
This research provides one of only a handful studies that have identified expertise
differences in golf putting planning strategies. Based on these results, some suggestions could
be made in order to improve practice, education and policy. Whilst results could indeed have
some significant implications, it is perhaps inappropriate to conclude and generalise findings
purely based on this small sample. Therefore, whilst suggestions are presented, they must be
cautiously interpreted. In addition, recommendations involve preparing for putt execution,
but as it is difficult to conclude precisely why higher-skilled golfers display superior long-
range putting performances, recommendations must be seen to add to or develop on existing
practice. For example, improved pre-putt planning may not affect putting performance at all
if technical development is not also a focus.
Firstly, these findings in particular may help to improve lower-skilled golfers’ long-
range putting performances. To do this, golfers could incorporate changes themselves or
ideally seek the guidance of a PGA professional, whereby focus should be on improving the
structure of their pre-shot routines. Firstly, lower-skilled golfers should be encouraged to
evaluate the green thoroughly prior to address so that putt execution follows swiftly after.
During green assessment, golfers should identify a specific spot on the green that the ball
would roll over for a successful outcome, or alternatively, identify a specific line that the ball
would take from the putter into the hole. Secondly, lesser-skilled golfers should attempt to
avoid mechanical thoughts during preparation and more so once they have addressed the ball.
Following this, coaches should encourage lower-skilled golfers to carry out brief, essential

glances towards the target. Only brief glances are required as a detailed examination has
already taken place.
Should the present results be confirmed in subsequent studies with larger sample sizes
that correct the limitations set out previously, then they may have implications for improving
policy within golf academies. As academies are often a stepping stone to elite golf, they
could potentially benefit from these conclusions. Firstly, findings suggest that to putt
successfully, golfers must focus on putt preparation. As a result, academy coaches should
highlight the importance of efficiently reading the green and planning putt execution.
Secondly, applied sport psychologists could ensure that facilitative, rather than debilitative
thought processes, are engrained into these higher-skilled performers.

Chapter 6: Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to firstly examine the cognitive strategies employed by
higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Secondly, the researcher
attempted to identify differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment
durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance.
Results indicated that both groups incorporated similar cognitive strategies during putt
preparation, including thoughts relating to gathering environmental information. Higher-
skilled golfers, however, employed additional cognitive and physical planning strategies and
expressed fewer mechanical thoughts. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers
would report more thoughts relating to both gathering environmental information and
planning, the research hypothesis was rejected. Findings also indicated that higher-skilled
golfers recorded significantly greater putt scores; the research hypothesis was subsequently
accepted. It was also found that higher-skilled participants recorded significantly shorter
glances to target; therefore, the research hypothesis was rejected. No significant differences
were identified for total assessment duration and glance frequency per putt across skill levels.
It was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would spend longer assessing putts and would
display fewer glances; therefore, both hypotheses were rejected.
The limitations of this study should be taken into account when concluding results.
Nevertheless, pending support from subsequent studies, findings may have implications for
lower-skilled golfers, coaches, applied sport psychology practitioners and golf academies.
Preceding research could implement verbal protocol analysis to investigate cognitive
processes between CONGU category 1, 2, 3 and 4 golfers. Future researchers may also
determine the effect of glance speed and frequency on long-range putting performance.

References
Alexander, D. L., & Kern, W. (2005). Drive for show and putt for dough? An analysis of the
earnings of PGA Tour golfers. Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 46-60.
doi:10.1177/1527002503260797
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of a cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 24, 225–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
Beilock, S. L., Wierenga, S. A., & Carr, T. H. (2002). Expertise, attention and memory in
sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task
performance and episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Section A, 55, 1211-1240. doi:10.1080/02724980244000170
Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R., Bakker, F. C., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (2009). Unwanted effects in
aiming actions: The relationship between gaze behavior and performance in a golf
putting task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 628-635.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.005
Boutcher, S. H. (1990). The role of performance routines in sport. In J. G. Jones, & L. Hardy
(Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Wiley.
Boutcher, S. H. (1992). Attentional and athletic performance: An integrated approach. In T.
S. Horn (Eds.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 251–266). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Calmeiro, L., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011). Concurrent verbal protocol analysis in sport:
Illustration of thought processes during a golf-putting task. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 5. 223-236.
Campbell, M. (2006). An empirical investigation of expertise in golf putting and green-
reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College, Dublin, Ireland.

Campbell, M. J., & Moran, A. P. (2014). There is more to green reading than meets the eye!
Exploring the gaze behaviours of expert golfers on a virtual golf putting task.
Cognitive Processing, 15, 363-372. doi:10.1007/s10339-014-0608-2
Causer, J., Janelle, C. M., Vickers, J. N., & Williams, A. M. (2012). Perceptual expertise:
What can be trained? In N. J. Hodges, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Skill acquisition in
sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 306-324). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Charness, N. (1981). Search in chess: Age and skill differences. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 467-476.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.2.467
Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect
of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory &
Cognition, 29, 1146-1152.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1
Cotterill, S. T., Sanders, R., & Collins, D. (2010). Developing effective pre-performance
routines in golf: Why don’t we ask the golfer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
22, 51–64. doi:10.1080/10413200903403216
Crews, D. J., & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). An exploratory observational behavior analysis of
professional golfers during competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 51-58.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal
experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the
theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981-
987. doi:10.1002/acp.925
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT-press.

French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (1999). Adaptations in response selection processes used
during sport competition with increasing age and expertise. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 30, 173-193. doi:10.1002/acp.925
French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (2004). Development of expertise in sport. In M. R. Weiss
(Eds.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp.
403-423). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An
introduction to research methods (2nd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2010). Research methods for sports studies. Oxford, UK: Taylor &
Francis.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills:
Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 9, 45–59. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.007
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 7, 81–97. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002
Jackson, R. C., & Wilson, R. (1999). Using ‘swing thoughts’ to prevent paradoxical
performance effects in golf putting. In M. R. Farrally & A. J. Cochran (Eds.), Science
and golf III: Proceedings of the world scientific congress of golf London. London,
UK: E & F. N. Spon.
Lemke, J. L. (2012). Analysing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. Second
International Handbook of Science Education, 24, 1471-1484. doi:10.1007/978-1-
4020-9041-7_94
Mackenzie, S. J., & Sprigings, E. J. (2005). Evaluation of the plumb bob method for reading
greens in putting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 81–87.
doi:10.1080/02640410410001730232

McCaffrey, N., & Orlick, T. (1989). Mental factors related to excellence among top
professional golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 256-278.
McPherson, S. L. (1999a). Expert-novice differences in performance skills and problem
representations of youth and adults during tennis competition. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 70, 233-251. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608043
McPherson, S. L. (1999b). Tactical differences in problem representations and solutions in
collegiate varsity and beginner female tennis players. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 70, 369-384. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608057
McPherson, S. L., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys'
tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190-211.
doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90002-7
McPherson, S. L., & Vickers, J. N. (2004). Cognitive control in motor expertise.
International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 274-300.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671746
Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M. R. (2012). Quiet eye training
expedites motor learning and aids performance under heightened anxiety: The roles of
response programming and external attention. Psychophysiology, 49, 1005-1015. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x
Moran, A. P. (1996). The psychology of concentration in sports performers: A cognitive
analysis. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2008). Think aloud: acute stress and coping strategies
during golf performances. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 21,
283-294. doi:10.1080/10615800701609207

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on
mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231-259.
Official World Golf Ranking (2015). Graeme McDowell world ranking. Retrieved from
http://www.owgr.com/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=7548.
Panchuk, D., & Vickers, J. N. (2013). Expert visual perception: Why having a quiet eye
matters in sport. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport
expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory into practice (195-209). Oxford:
Routledge.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd
edition). California,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pelz, D. (2000). Dave Pelz’s putting bible: The complete guide to mastering the green. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
PGA Tour (2011). Putting statistics. Retrieved from PGA Tour official website
http://www.pgatour.com.
PGA Tour (2015). PGA Tour total putting statistic. Retrieved from
http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02428.html
Shaw, D. (2002). Confidence and the pre-shot routine in golf: A case study. In I. Cockerill
(Eds.), Solutions in Sport Psychology (pp.108-119). London, UK: DC Thomson.
Singer, R. N. (1988). Strategies and meta strategies in learning and performing self-paced
athletic skills. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 49–68.
Thomas, P. R., & Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated with
performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 73-86.
Thomas, P. R., Neumann, D. L., & Hooper, S. L. (2008). Attentional focus and putting
performance at different levels of skill development. In D. J. Crews., & T. R. Lutz

(Eds.), Science and golf V: proceedings of the world scientific congress of golf (pp.
224-231). Mesa, AZ: Energy in Motion.
Vickers, J. N. (1992). Gaze control in putting. Perception, 21, 117–132. doi:10.1068/p210117
Vickers, J. N. (1996). Visual control when aiming at a far target. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 342-354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.342
Vickers, J. N. (2011). Mind over muscle: The role of gaze control, spatial cognition, and the
quiet eye in motor expertise. Cognitive Processing, 12, 219-222. doi:10.1007/s10339-
011-0411-2
Vickers, J. N., & Williams, A. M. (2007). Performing under pressure: The effects of
physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety, and gaze control in biathlon. Journal of
Motor Behaviour, 39, 381-394. doi:10.3200/JMBR.39.5.381-394
Vickers. J. N. (2007). Perception, cognition and decision training: the quiet eye in action.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ward, P., Suss, J., Eccles, D. W., Williams, A. M., & Harris, K. R. (2011). Skill-based
differences in option generation in a complex task: A verbal protocol analysis.
Cognitive Processing, 12, 289-300. doi:10.1007/s10339-011-0397-9
Wilson, M. R., & Pearcy, R. C. (2009). Visuomotor control of straight and breaking golf
putts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 1–8. doi:10.2466/pms.109.2.555-562

Appendix A
Research Participation Information Sheet
Name of Researcher: Gregory Jason Palin
Project Title: Verbal Protocol Analysis in Golf: An Illustration of Thought Processes Whilst
Reading Long-Range Putts
What is the purpose of the study?
The aim of this study is to provide a new insight into how lesser-skilled and higher-skilled
golfers plan and read long-range putts prior to the stroke itself. The results aim to improve
putting performance in practice and competition by using more effective cognitive strategies
during the planning and preparation stages of long-range putts. Ultimately, this study hopes
to highlight the importance of reading long putts effectively and may lead to more effective
pre-shot routines amongst all levels of amateur golfers.
Why have I been selected to take part?
The study involves two different groups of golfers: one group of ten participants with
CONGU handicaps of below 5.0 and ten participants with CONGU handicaps of above 19.5.
What will I have to do?
Prior to the task there will be a ten minute warm up period which will allow participants to
practice talking aloud and to adjust to the speed of the greens. Then, participants will perform
a total of twelve 25 foot putts on a putting green. Putts will be taken from different locations.
The study itself requires the participants to verbalise their thoughts throughout the read up
until the putt itself. Headphones utilising a voice recorder (placed in the trouser pocket) will
record this verbal data and the use of a video camera (placed on a tripod in three different
locations) will identify where the participant tends to focus their eyes throughout the read.
What are the risks?
There is a very small potential risk of being struck by a golf ball by a golfer playing a hole
close by the practice putting green. Prior to the study, participants will be reinforced of the
‘fore’ safety signal in case of such an event and will be told to be aware of any other golfers
around the practice putting green.
Do I have the right to withdraw from the study?
Involvement in this research project is entirely voluntary and participants have the right to
withdraw at any time without consequence.
How will confidentiality be assured?
Confidentiality of data and the protection of identity when publishing the results are
paramount unless consent is obtained.
If I require further information who should I contact?
Mr Gregory Palin
1208162@my.brunel.ac.uk
07929465077

Appendix B
Informed Consent Sheet
Name of Researcher: Gregory Jason Palin
Project Title: Verbal Protocol Analysis in Golf: An Illustration of Thought Processes Whilst
Reading Long-Range Putts
Participant Name:
Age:
Exact Handicap:
Competitive Golf Experience (Years):
Participants to read
 The details of the task have been explained to me fully?
 I have read and understand all potential benefits of the study?
 I have read and understand all potential risks associated with the task and am aware of
the safety procedures?
 Have any questions I have about the task been answered?
 I am aware that I am able to pull out of the task at any moment without consequence.
 I am aware that my personal details will remain confidential.
Signature of Participant: Date:

Appendix C
Data Collection Sheet
Checklist
-Tape Measure -Video camera -Tripod
- Voice recorder -12 Golf Balls -Putter
- Tees
Putt score – Hole (4 pts), within 1’ (3 pts), within 2’ (2 pts) and within 3’ (1pt)
Area Putt 1 Putt 2 Putt 3
A (uphill)
B (right-to-left)
C (downhill)
D (left-to-right)
Putt Assessment Duration
Putt Putt Assessment Duration (s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Mean Putt Assessment Duration:

Thought processes of golfers during long-range putts

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Thought processes of golfers during long-range putts

Similar to Thought processes of golfers during long-range putts (20)

Thought processes of golfers during long-range putts