Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature.
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
Evidence has ostensibly been accumulating over the past 2 decades suggesting that an external focus on the intended movement effect (e.g., on the golf club during a swing) is superior to an internal focus on body movements (e.g., on your arms during a swing) for skill acquisition. Seven previous meta-studies have all reported evidence of external focus superiority. The most comprehensive of these concluded that an external focus enhances motor skill retention, transfer, and performance and leads to reduced eletromyographic activity during performance and that more distal external foci are superior to proximal external foci for performance. Here, we reanalyzed these data using robust Bayesian meta-analyses that included several plausible models of publication bias. We found moderate to strong evidence of publication bias for all analyses. After correcting for publication bias, estimated mean effects were negligible: g = 0.01 (performance), g = 0.15 (retention), g = 0.09 (transfer), g = 0.06 (electromyography), and g = -0.01 (distance effect). Bayes factors indicated data favored the null for each analysis, ranging from BF01 = 1.3 (retention) to 5.75 (performance). We found clear evidence of heterogeneity in each analysis, suggesting the impact of attentional focus depends on yet unknown contextual factors. Our results contradict the existing consensus that an external focus is always more effective than an internal focus. Instead, focus of attention appears to have a variety of effects that we cannot account for, and, on average, those effects are small to nil. These results parallel previous metascience suggesting publication bias has obfuscated the motor learning literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
