IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO FEEDBACK ON LANDING MECHANICS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 309.1-309
Author(s):  
Nelson Cortes ◽  
Tijana Popovic ◽  
Oladipo Eddo ◽  
Anne Benjaminse ◽  
Amanda Caswell ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia Euser ◽  
Claudia I. Vrijhof ◽  
Bianca G. Van den Bulk ◽  
Rachel Vermeulen ◽  
Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Primary aim of the current randomized controlled trial was to test the effectiveness of the parenting intervention ‘Video-feedback to promote Positive Parenting and Sensitive Discipline’ (VIPP-SD) in a sample of parents of preschool-aged twins, as well as differential susceptibility to intervention efforts, that is, whether more temperamentally reactive parents would profit more from the VIPP-SD than parents with lower reactivity. Methods The sample consisted of 202 families with same-sex twins [N = 404 children, mean age 45 months (SD = 6.81)]. Randomization was done at the family level in a 2:3 ratio, with 83 families (41%) randomized to the VIPP-SD group, and 119 families (59%) to the control group. After two pre-tests in year 1 and year 2 of the study, the VIPP-SD was implemented in the third year, with a post-test assessment 1 month after the five intervention sessions. Parental sensitivity was observed during structured play in which parent and child copied a drawing together in a computerized Etch-A-Sketch paradigm. Parental limit-setting was observed in a ‘don’t touch’ task in which the parent required from the child to abstain from playing with attractive toys. Parents interacted with each of their twins in separate sessions. Results The VIPP-SD intervention had a positive impact on the level of parents’ positive limit-setting in interaction with their preschool twins, and this positive effect was most pronounced when the parents completed at least five intervention sessions. However, the intervention did not enhance parental sensitivity during structured play. Parents with higher reactivity were not more open to the impact of the intervention, thus for this temperamental marker differential susceptibility in adults was not supported. Conclusions The current study is unique in targeting families with twin preschoolers, providing proof of principle that coaching parents with video-feedback promotes parental sensitive limit-setting to both children. It remains to be seen whether this finding can be replicated in families with non-twin siblings, or other parental susceptibility markers. Trial registration Trial NL5172 (NTR5312), 2015-07-20.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Juan Jie ◽  
Melanie Kleynen ◽  
Kenneth Meijer ◽  
Anna Beurskens ◽  
Susy Braun

PurposeTo evaluate whether the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions for people after stroke delivered in a randomized controlled trial were performed as intended (fidelity) and to report the therapist and participant experiences with regard to feasibility.MethodsDose delivered and content of instructions were assessed by evaluating the therapist logs and audio recordings of the training sessions. The therapist and participant experiences were assessed by means of self-developed questionnaires.Results79 people were included of which seven people (9%) dropped out. The remaining participants all received the required minimum of seven sessions. Overall therapists adhered to the intervention guideline. On average 5.2 and 0.4 explicit rules were used within the explicit group and implicit group respectively. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility but frequent comments were made by the therapists regarding “therapy time restrictions” and “tendency of the participants to develop explicit rules”. A variety of changes were observed ranging from improvements in spatiotemporal parameters to cognitions and emotions.ConclusionThe delivery of the implicit and explicit motor learning walking interventions were successful in terms of fidelity. Therapists and participants were generally positive about the feasibility of the intervention.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000-000
Author(s):  
Maria Beatriz M. Linhares ◽  
Elisa R. P. Altafim ◽  
Cláudia M. Gaspardo ◽  
Rebeca C. de Oliveira

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document