Hydro Activity For Stress Recovery in Sports: October 2013

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/305494464
Hydro Activity for Stress Recovery in Sports
Book · October 2013
CITATIONS READS
2 203
1 author:
Supriyo Mondal
MIDNAPORE COLLEGE
15 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Supriyo Mondal on 22 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

! "

#

$ % &

' ( )'%
& * '
+' +,- . ' /
+ 0 +1- '.)
( 0 2 , $
+ * " (

!
" #
$ !% ! & $
' ' ($
' # % % ) % * %
' $ '
+ " % &
' !# $,
( $
- .

!
"- (
%
. %
% % % $
$ $ -
-
- -
// $$$
0

1"1"#23."

4& )*5/ +)
678%99:::& % ) -
2 ;
* &

< "-. %= - + %7>:>
/- ?7>:@4& )*5/ +)

"3 " & 7>:@
EFFECT OF LOW-IMPACT WATER EXERCISES
ON STRESS RECOVERY OF COLLEGE
FOOTBALL PLAYERS

Ǉ
SUPRIYO MONDAL

A THESIS
ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨ<ĞƌĂůĂ
ŝŶůŝĞƵŽĨĂƉĂƉĞƌĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞŐƌĞĞŽĨ
DĂƐƚĞƌŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
>ĂŬƐŚŵŝďĂŝEĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽůůĞŐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ
dŚŝƌƵǀĂŶĂŶƚŚĂƉƵƌĂŵ
ƉƌŝůϮϬϭϬ

'HGLFDWHGWR
0\%HORYHG6LVWHU
681,7$021'$/
681,7$021'$/
ŝŝ

&(57,),&$7(
7KLVLVWRFHUWLI\WKDWWKLVWKHVLV(IIHFWRI/RZ,PSDFW:DWHU
([HUFLVHVRQ6WUHVV5HFRYHU\RI&ROOHJH)RRWEDOO3OD\HUVLVWKHUHFRUGRI
ERQDILGH UHVHDUFK FDUULHG RXW E\ 0U 6835,<2 021'$/ XQGHU P\
VXSHUYLVLRQ
Ǥ ǤǤ

ŝŝŝ

CURRICULUM VITAE
Mr. SUPRIYO MONDAL
EMAIL: CAREER OBJECTIVE
supriyomondal25@gmail͘ĐŽŵ
To ride high on all levels of activities, that will enhance my
Permanent Address knowledge and lead me to be a dynamic Researcher and an
Village & P.O – Purandarpur able Physical Educator.
District – Birbhum
West Bengal, 731129 ACADEMIC PROFILE
PERSONAL DATA • YƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚh'Ed;:ƵŶĞ͕ϮϬϭϮͿΘ:Z&;ĞĐ͕ϮϬϭϮͿ

Age: 27
• WƵƌƐƵŝŶŐWŚŝŶ>EhW͕'ǁĂůŝŽƌ
Date of Birth: 25/01/1986
Sex: Male • DĂƐƚĞƌŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶϮϬϬϴͲϮϬϭϬ
dŚĞŽƌǇ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͗^ƉŽƌƚƐWŚǇƐŝŽůŽŐǇ
Marital Status: Single WƌĂĐƚŝĐĂů^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͗sŽůůĞǇďĂůů
hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨ<ĞƌĂůĂ
Father’s Name: R.S.Mondal

Mother’s Name: Rina Mondal • ͘W͘ĚϮϬϬϳͲϮϬϬϴ
ϭƐƚůĂƐƐ^ĞĐŽŶĚƌĂŶŬ͕sŝƐǀĂŚĂƌĂƚŝhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ
Nationality: Indian
• ͘;,ŽŶͿŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶϮϬϬϰͲϮϬϬϳ
Languages known: English, ϭƐƚůĂƐƐ^ĞĐŽŶĚZĂŶŬ
^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶ͗&ŽŽƚďĂůů
Hindi, Bengali, Malyalam
sŝƐǀĂŚĂƌĂƚŝhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ

Contact No-
• ZĞĐŝƉŝĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ DĞƌŝƚ ^ĐŚŽůĂƌƐŚŝƉ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ǇĞĂƌƐ
08878458214/09681587769 ϮϬϬϱ͕ϮϬϬϲ͕ϮϬϬϳ͕ϮϬϬϴΘϮϬϬϵ͘
ŝǀ

PROFICIENCY

SKILLS 9 Coaching Football, Volleyball & Athletics.
¾ Good Communication
¾ Leadership 9 Teaching Exercise Physiology, Sport Training, Applied
¾ Interpersonal Skills Research and Statistics (Physical Edu.)
¾ Highly Adaptable
¾ Sincere
¾ Trustworthy 9 Programmer Management in Sports Competition.
¾ Sociable

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (PRESENTATIONS)
) Presented a paper on “Pricing Concept and strategies in Sports Marketing” in XIV Annual
Conference of West Bengal Association of Sports Medicine and a Seminar on Role of Sports
Administration on Sports Development organised by Jadavpur University on 3rd March 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “Promote Healthy Aging” in National Conference on Fitness,
Yoga and Rehabilitation at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “A comparison of Ex-Post Facto Effect of Gymnastic, Yoga &
Mallakhamb Activities on Flexibility” in National Conference on Fitness, Yoga and Rehabilitation
at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “Status of Cardiovascular Endurance of Different Religious
Believes In India-A Comparative Study” in National Conference on Fitness, Yoga and
Rehabilitation at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013.
) Presented the paper entitled “Sports Recovery in Water Medium: A Research Synthesis” in
National Conference on Exercise Physiology and Sport Sciences at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya
Pradesh, 31st-2nd February 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “Hydration: A Special Emphasis on Sports Performance” in
International Conference on Futuristic Trends in Physical Education at Patila, Punjab, 24th-26th
January 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “Post Marital Changes in Various Structural and Physiological
Variables of Active and Sedentary Women” in International Conference on Futuristic Trends in
Physical Education at Patila, Punjab, 24th-26th January 2013.
) Presented a paper entitled “Hydration: A Special Emphasis on Athletes” in International
Conference on Learning Community for Global Education Reform at IPS, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh,
2011.
) Presented a paper entitled “Cause, Effect & Preventive Strategies of Stress” in International
Conference on Physical Education and Sports Science, Goa, 2011.
ǀ

) Presented a paper entitled “Distress and Means to Recover” in National Seminar on
Scientific Innovations in Sports at Aligarh Muslim University, 13-02-2010.
) Presented a paper entitled “Effect of Low-Impact Water Exercises on Stress Recovery of
College Football Players” in 14th Commonwealth International Sports Science Congress, 2010.
) Presented a paper entitled “Give Your Immune System A Boost” at National Workshop on
Environmental Influences on Physical Activity and Nutrition Behaviours, N.S.S College TVM, 27-01-
2009
EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (PUBLICATIONS)
) Published a paper entitled “Response of Children with Down Syndrome to Physical

Activity Programme on Motor Proficiency and Functional Abilities” in the Research on
Humanities and Social Sciences Journal, ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online), Vol.3,
No.11, 20
) Published a paper entitled “Comparison of Selected Physical Fitness Variables in Female
Students of Four Year Integrated B.P.Ed and One Year B.P.Ed” in the SPECTRUM (International
Journal of Humanities), ISSN 2321-6808, Volume-I, Issue-II, July 2013.
) Published a paper entitled “An Exploratory Factor Analysis Approach for Screening Test
Item in Artistic Gymnastics” in the International Educational E-Journal, ISSN 2277-2456, Volume-II,
Issue-III, July-Aug-Sept 2013
) Published a paper entitled “Promote Healthy Aging” in Proceedings of National Conference
on Fitness, Yoga and Rehabilitation at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013;
ISBN: 978-81-89983-65-9
) Published a paper entitled “A comparisons of Ex-Post Facto Effect of Gymnastic, Yoga &
Mallakhamb Activities on Flexibility” in Proceedings of National Conference on Fitness, Yoga and
Rehabilitation at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013; ISBN: 978-81-89983-65-
9
) Published a paper entitled “Status of Cardiovascular Endurance of Different Religious
Believes in India-A Comparative Study” in Proceedings of National Conference on Fitness, Yoga
and Rehabilitation at LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February 2013; ISBN: 978-81-
89983-65-9
) Published the paper entitled “Sports Recovery in Water Medium: A Research Synthesis” in
Proceedings of National Conference on Exercise Physiology and Sport Sciences at LNUPE, Gwalior,
Madhya Pradesh, 31st January-2nd February 2013; ISBN: 978-81-7524-699-7
) Published a paper entitled “Post Marital Changes in Various Structural and Physiological
Variables of Active and Sedentary Women” in Book Futuristic Trends in Physical Education Vol.I;
January 2013; ISBN: 978-93-80144-62-7
) Published a paper entitled “Hydration: A Special Emphasis on Sports Performance” in the
Book Futuristic Trends in Physical Education Vol.II; January 2013; ISBN: 978-93-80144-63-4
ǀŝ

Reference OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCES
Dr. Usha S Nair ) DĞŵďĞƌŽĨK^ŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕'ŽĂhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ϮϬϭϬƚŽĚĂƚĞ͘

Reader ) tŽƌŬĞĚĂƐdĞĂĐŚŝŶŐƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚŝŶ>EhW͕'ǁĂůŝŽƌ͕ϮϬϭϮƚŽϮϬϭϯ͘
Lakhsmibai National College of ) WĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚŝŶϯƌĚϳĂǇƐEĂƚŝŽŶĂůtŽƌŬƐŚŽƉŽŶZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐǇĨŽƌ
Physical Education
DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ĂŶĚ ^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂů ŶĂůǇƐŝƐ hƐŝŶŐ /D ^W^^ ^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐƐ ϮϬ͘Ϭ ĨƌŽŵ
Dean of Students Welfare DĂǇϮϳͲ:ƵŶĞϮ͕ϮϬϭϯ͘
(Dept. of Physical Education, ) ^ĞƌǀĞĚĂƐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞWĞƌƐŽŶĨŽƌt^WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶKƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƵƌƐĞ
Kerala University)
ϭϭƚŚDĂƌĐŚƚŽϮϱƚŚDĂƌĐŚϮϬϭϯ͘
Trivandrum-17, Kerala.
) Edited Proceedings of National Conference on Fitness, Yoga and
Ph - 09745827790
Rehabilitation, LNUPE, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, 18th-20th February
2013; ISBN: 978-81-89983-65-9
Dr. Sagarika Bandyopadhyay
) ^ĞƌǀĞĚĂƐZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞWĞƌƐŽŶĨŽƌ<s^WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶKƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽƵƌƐĞƐ
Reader
ϭϲƚŚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌƚŽϲƚŚĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϮĂŶĚϯƌĚ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇƚŽϮϯƌĚ:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϬϭϯ͘
Dept. of Physical Education
) tŽƌŬĞĚ ĂƐ ƐƐŝƐƚĂŶƚ WƌŽĨĞƐƐŽƌ ŝŶ dŚĞ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ WŚǇƐŝĐĂů ĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕
Dean of Student’s Welfare ŽŶŽƐĐŽŽůůĞŐĞ͕'ŽĂhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ϮϬϭϬͲϮϬϭϭ͘
VISVA BHARATI UNIVERSITY ) hŶĚĞƌŐŽŶĞKŶĞDŽŶƚŚĂƐŝĐdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐŝŶ^ǁŝŵŵŝŶŐ͕^/͕>EW͕ϮϬϭϬ͘
Santiniketan ) hŶĚĞƌƚĂŬĞŶdŚĞƐŝƐĞŶƚŝƚůĞĚ͞ĨĨĞĐƚŽĨ>ŽǁͲ/ŵƉĂĐƚtĂƚĞƌǆĞƌĐŝƐĞƐŽŶ^ƚƌĞƐƐ
West Bengal. ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇ ŽĨ ŽůůĞŐĞ &ŽŽƚďĂůů WůĂǇĞƌƐ͟ ŝŶ ůŝĞƵ ŽĨ Ă ƉĂƉĞƌ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĞŐƌĞĞ ŽĨ
Ph – 09474867945 DĂƐƚĞƌ͛ƐŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇŽĨ<ĞƌĂůĂ͕ϮϬϭϬ͘
sagarikasaga@rediffmail.com ) ZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĞĚ sŝƐǀĂ ŚĂƌĂƚŝ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ ŝŶ /ŶƚĞƌ hŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ sŽůůĞǇďĂůů
dŽƵƌŶĂŵĞŶƚϮϬϬϳͲϮϬϬϴ͘
) tĞƐƚĞŶŐĂů^ƚĂƚĞ<ĂďĂĚĚŝKĨĨŝĐŝĂů͘
) tŽƌŬĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚƚŝŵĞ/ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŽƌŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂƚdŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ
WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕sŝƐǀĂŚĂƌĂƚŝhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ϮϬϬϲͲϮϬϬϳ͘
) ,ĂǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞŽĨŽŵƉƵƚĞƌƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘
ĞĐůĂƌĂƚŝŽŶ͗
/ŚĞƌĞďǇĚĞĐůĂƌĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĨƵƌŶŝƐŚĞĚĂďŽǀĞŝƐƚƌƵĞƚŽƚŚĞďĞƐƚŽĨŵǇŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ
ďĞůŝĞĨ͘
WůĂĐĞ͗ 'ǁĂůŝŽƌ
ĂƚĞ͗ϮϵͲϬϴͲϮϬϭϯ ^hWZ/zKDKE>
ǀŝŝ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr. S. S. Hasrani, Principal,

Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education, Thriuvanathapuram for his advice and
permitting me to conduct this study.
With immense pleasure, I express my deep felt of gratitude and indebtedness to my

advisor, Dr. Usha. S .Nair, Reader, Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education,
Thriuvanathapuram for her guidance, interest and encouragement throughout the study. It was
her valuable suggestions and constructive criticisms that enabled me to successfully complete
this work.
I owe my gratitude to Dr. Pradip Dutta, Lecturer(Sr. Scale) and Football Coach,
Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education, Thriuvanathapuram for his valuable
suggestions and support during the course of the study.
I would like to record my gratitude to the football players of S.A.I, L.N.C.P.E,

Thiruvanathapuram, who acted as subjects for my study.
I extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Muraleedharan, Librarian for his kind help and my
friends for their wholehearted support and cooperation extended to compete this work.
Needless to say, the whole spirit beyond all my success is the blessing, patience,
encouragement and inspiration of my parents Sri. Radhashyam Mondal and Smt. Rina mondal,
who are constant source of strength to me. My warmest gratitude is due to my sister Sunita
Mondal for her moral and inspiring support to complete this work.
SUPRIYO MONDAL
ǀŝŝŝ

TABLE OF CONTENTS

>/^dK&d>^ ǆ
>/^dK&&/'hZ^ ǆǀ
ŚĂƉƚĞƌƐ WĂŐĞEŽ͘
ϭ͘ /EdZKhd/KE ϭ
^ƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽďůĞŵ
ĞůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
,ǇƉŽƚŚĞƐŝƐ
ĞĨŝŶŝƚŝŽŶĂŶĚǆƉůĂŶĂƚŝŽŶŽĨdĞƌŵƐ
^ŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚƵĚǇ
Ϯ͘ Zs/tK&Z>d>/dZdhZǭ ϳ
ϯ͘ WZKhZ ϭϯ
^ĞůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƐ
sĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ
ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨdŽŽů
ZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚǇ
ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞdĞƐƚ
ǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĞƐŝŐŶ
ǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůdƌĂŝŶŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵŵĞ
ŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƚĂ
^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐĂůdĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞƐ
ϰ͘ ^dd/^d/>d,E/Yh^h^&KZd,E>z^/^K&d ϮϬ
ŶĂůǇƐŝƐŝŶĞƚĂŝů
ŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŽĨ&ŝŶĚŝŶŐƐ
ŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŽĨ,ǇƉŽƚŚĞƐŝƐ
ϱ͘ ^hDDZz͕KE>h^/KEEZKDDEd/KE ϭϬϭ
^ƵŵŵĂƌǇ
ŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶ
ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ
WWE/^ ϭϬϱ
/>/K'ZW,z ϭϬϴ

ŝǆ

>/^dK&d>^

dĂďůĞ͗ϭ DŝĐƌŽĐǇĐůĞŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŬŝŶĚƐŽĨƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌǇƉĞƌŝŽĚŐŝǀĞŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉǁĞĞŬůǇ ϭϱ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯ DŝĐƌŽĐǇĐůĞŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚŝŶŐǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŬŝŶĚƐŽĨƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌǇƉĞƌŝŽĚŐŝǀĞŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉǁĞĞŬůǇ ϭϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯ dĞƌŵŝŶĂůǁĂƌŵƵƉĨŽƌƚŚƌĞĞŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶƐŚĂůůŽǁĂƌĞĂ
ϭϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰ tĂƌŵͲƵƉƐƚƌĞƚĐŚĞƐĨŽƌĨŝǀĞŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶƐŚĂůůŽǁĂƌĞĂ
ϭϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱ /ŶŝƚŝĂůĂĞƌŽďŝĐĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐŽĨǀĞƌǇůŽǁŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚǇĨŽƌĨŝǀĞŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶƚŚĞϭ͘ϱŵĞƚĞƌĚĞƉƚŚ
ĂƌĞĂ ϭϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲ &ůŽƚĂƚŝŽŶĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞƐǁŝƚŚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚĞŶŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶĚĞĞƉĂƌĞĂ
ϭϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳ ZĞůĂǆĂƚŝŽŶĞǆĞƌĐŝƐĞƐĨŽƌƐĞǀĞŶŵŝŶƵƚĞƐŝŶƐŚĂůůŽǁǁĂƚĞƌ
ϭϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϴ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂů
^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϮϮ
dĂďůĞ͗ϵ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ'ĞŶĞƌĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϬ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ'ĞŶĞƌĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϭ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶ
ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϮ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ
ŵŽƚŝŽŶĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉƐ Ϯϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϯ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵŽƚŝŽŶĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϰ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶŵŽƚŝŽŶĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϱ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŽƚŝŽŶĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ Ϯϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϲ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ŽĐŝĂů
^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϳ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ŽĐŝĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϭϴ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ^ŽĐŝĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϮ
ǆ

dĂďůĞ͗ϭϵ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ŽĐŝĂů^ƚƌĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶ
ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϮϬ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ
ŽŶĨůŝĐƚͬWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϰ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϭ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŽŶĨůŝĐƚͬWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϮϮ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶŽŶĨůŝĐƚͬWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϲ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϯ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨŽŶĨůŝĐƚƐͬWƌĞƐƐƵƌĞ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϳ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϰ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ&ĂƚŝŐƵĞ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϴ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϱ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ&ĂƚŝŐƵĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϯϵ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϲ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ&ĂƚŝŐƵĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ
ϰϬ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϳ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ&ĂƚŝŐƵĞƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϭ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϴ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ>ĂĐŬŽĨ
ŶĞƌŐǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϮ
dĂďůĞ͗Ϯϵ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ>ĂĐŬŽĨŶĞƌŐǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϬ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ>ĂĐŬŽĨŶĞƌŐǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϭ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ>ĂĐŬŽĨŶĞƌŐǇƐĐŽƌĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϮ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ
^ŽŵĂƚŝĐͬWŚǇƐŝĐĂůŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϯ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ŽŵĂƚŝĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϰ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ^ŽŵĂƚŝĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϱ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ŽŵĂƚŝĐͬWŚǇƐŝĐĂů
ŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϰϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϲ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϱϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϳ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϱϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϯϴ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ
ϱϮ
ǆŝ

dĂďůĞ͗ϯϵ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ƵĐĐĞƐƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϱϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϬ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Social
recovery scores of students in control and experimental group ϱϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϭ ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Social Recovery scores of experimental and
control group ϱϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϮ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Social Recovery scores of control and experimental
group ϱϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϯ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ŽĐŝĂůƌĞĐŽǀĞƌǇƐĐŽƌĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϱϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϰ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest
Somatic/Physical Recovery scores of students in control and experimental group ϱϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϱ ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Somatic Recovery scores of experimental
and control group ϱϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϲ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Somatic/Physical Recovery scores of control and
experimental group ϲϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϳ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨWŚǇƐŝĐĂůͬ^ŽŵĂƚŝĐ
ZĞĐŽǀĞƌǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϴ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest General
Well-Being scores of students in control and experimental group ϲϮ
dĂďůĞ͗ϰϵ NCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest General Well-being scores of experimental
and control group ϲϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϬ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean General Well-being scores of control and
experimental group ϲϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϭ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ'ĞŶĞƌĂůtĞůůͲĞŝŶŐ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϮ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ůĞĞƉ
YƵĂůŝƚǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϯ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ůĞĞƉYƵĂůŝƚǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϰ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ^ůĞĞƉYƵĂůŝƚǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϱ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ůĞĞƉYƵĂůŝƚǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶ
ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϲϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϲ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚ
ƌĞĂŬƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϳ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƌĞĂŬƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂů
ĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϱϴ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƌĞĂŬƐƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϮ
ǆŝŝ

dĂďůĞ͗ϱϵ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨŝƐƚƵƌďĞĚƌĞĂŬƐ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϬ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ
ŵŽƚŝŽŶĂůǆŚĂƵƐƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϭ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵŽƚŝŽŶĂůǆŚĂƵƐƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϮ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶŵŽƚŝŽŶĂůǆŚĂƵƐƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϯ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨŵŽƚŝŽŶĂůǆŚĂƵƐƚŝŽŶ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϰ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ/ŶũƵƌǇ
ƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϱ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ/ŶũƵƌǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽů
ŐƌŽƵƉ ϳϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϲ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ/ŶũƵƌǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ
ϴϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϳ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ/ŶũƵƌǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϴϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϴ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Being in
Shape scores of students in control and experimental group ϴϮ
dĂďůĞ͗ϲϵ ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Being in Shape scores of experimental and
control group ϴϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϬ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Being in Shape scores of control and experimental
group ϴϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϭ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨĞŝŶŐŝŶ^ŚĂƉĞƐĐŽƌĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϴϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϮ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Personal
Accomplishment scores of students in control and experimental group ϴϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϯ ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Personal Accomplishment scores of
experimental and control group ϴϳ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϰ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Personal Accomplishment scores of control and
experimental group ϴϴ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϱ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨWĞƌƐŽŶĂů
ĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚŵĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϴϵ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϲ Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Self-
Efficacy scores of students in control and experimental group ϵϬ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϳ ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest general Self-Efficacy of experimental and
control group ϵϭ
dĂďůĞ͗ϳϴ Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Self-Efficacy scores of control and experimental
group ϵϮ
ǆŝŝŝ

dĂďůĞ͗ϳϵ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨ^ĞůĨͲĨĨŝĐĂĐǇƐĐŽƌĞƐŝŶ
ƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϵϯ
dĂďůĞ͗ϴϬ DĂŝŶĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐŽĨƚŚĞĚĂƚĂĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶŽĨƉƌĞƚĞƐƚ͕ŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ĞůĨͲ
ZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐŝŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϵϰ
dĂďůĞ͗ϴϭ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ĞůĨͲƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐ ŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ

ĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐƌŽƵƉ ϵϱ
dĂďůĞ͗ϴϮ ĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶ^ĞůĨͲƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚ
ĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϵϲ
dĂďůĞ͗ϴϯ WƌĞƚŽŵŝĚ͕ƉƌĞƚŽƉŽƐƚĂŶĚŵŝĚƚŽƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚŵĞĂŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨZĞůĨͲZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŐƌŽƵƉ ϵϳ

ǆŝǀ

>/^dK&&/'hZ^

Figure 1: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of General Stress
scores in the control group and experimental group 24
Figure 2: The percentage gain/loss of General Stress scores in control and
experimental group 26
Figure 3: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Emotional
Stress scores in the control group and experimental group 28
Figure 4: The percentage gain/loss of Emotional Stress scores in control and
Figure 5: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Social Stress
Figure 6: The percentage gain/loss of Social Stress scores in control and
Figure 7: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of
Conflict/Pressure scores in the control group and experimental group 36
Figure 8: The percentage gain/loss of Conflict/Pressure scores in control and
Figure 9: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Fatigue scores
in the control group and experimental group 40
Figure 10: The percentage gain/loss of Fatigue scores in control and experimental
group 42
Figure 11: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Lack of
Energy scores in the control group and experimental group 44
Figure 12: The percentage gain/loss of Lack of Energy scores in control and
Somatic/Physical Complaints scores in the control group and 48
experimental group
Figure 14: The percentage gain/loss of Somatic/Physical Complaints scores in
control and experimental group 50
Figure 15: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Success scores
Figure 16: The percentage gain/loss of Success scores in control and experimental
group 54
ǆǀ

Figure 17: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Social
Recovery scores in the control group and experimental group 56
Figure 18: The percentage gain/loss of Social Recovery scores in control and
Somatic/Physical Recovery scores in the control group and experimental 60
group
Figure 20: The percentage gain/loss of Somatic/Physical Recovery scores in control
and experimental group 62
Figure 21: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of General Well-
Being scores in the control group and experimental group 64
Figure 22: The percentage gain/loss of General Well-Being scores in control and
Figure 23: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Sleep Quality
Figure 24: The percentage gain/loss of Sleep Quality scores in control and
Figure 25: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Disturbed
Breaks scores in the control group and experimental group 72
Figure 26: The percentage gain/loss of Disturbed Breaks scores in control and
Exhaustion scores in the control group and experimental group 76
Figure 28: The percentage gain/loss of Emotional Exhaustion scores in control and
Figure 29: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Injury scores
Figure 30: The percentage gain/loss of Injury scores in control and experimental
group 82
Figure 31: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Being in
Shape scores in the control group and experimental group 84
Figure 32: The percentage gain/loss of Being in Shape scores in control and
Figure 33: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Personal
Accomplishment scores in the control group and experimental group 88
Figure 34: The percentage gain/loss of Personal Accomplishment scores in control
and experimental group 90
Figure 35: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Self-Efficacy
ǆǀŝ

Figure 36: The percentage gain/loss of Self-Efficacy scores in control and
Figure 37: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Self
Regulation scores in the control group and experimental group 96
Figure 38: The percentage gain/loss of Self-Regulation scores in control and

ǆǀŝŝ

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Recovery is an important factor in athletic and non athletic life and that
optimal recovery may prevent underperformance as well as can promote performance.
An interdisciplinary approach is very valuable for the integration of psychological and
physiological knowledge as well as for the use of applied intervention and prevention
strategies. Athlete’s optimal performance requires a close cooperation among
coaches, athletes, sports physicians, and sports psychologists to utilize the available
medical, psychological and performance data on an interdisciplinary basis.
The desire to provide peek physical and psychological performance during

competition necessitates preparation involving intense and stressful training.
Adaptations to heavy workloads are dependent upon the athlete’s physical and
emotional ability to cope up with increase work volume and intensities.
The basic idea of recovery-stress approach is that long term negative effects of
stressors occur if the organism is unable to “unwind” (Frank-enhaeuser, 1978), to
recover resources and regain homeostatic and biorhythmic balance, in other words, to
recover.
Successful completion of long and intensive athletic training for achieving top
performance depends largely on the extent to which the athlete can regenerate his/her
physical and mental strength after training. Regeneration is a bio chemical process,
fostered by athlete for regaining strength and preventing injury (Sugaman, 1998)
Poor regeneration for athlete leads to overtraining. Stress comes to represent

the body condition under strain. Stress related problem have become an ever
increasing complaints among peoples of all level. Stress is not generated from the
external world. The stress response is triggered from within, from reacting to external
stimuli. The multilevel concept also emphasis that physical training is just one part of
athlete’s life. Worries or problems outside the training environment (e.g. - fights,
parent’s divorce, family problems etc.) affects athletes and often disturb their
recovery time.
The aim of recovery is to improve the general, physical, psychological

condition of the athlete and providing regular and intermediate relief from fatigue.
The most important goal is recovery of the entire organism, especially the nervous
system. (Kautedakiset,1999).
Biochemically athletes who are relaxed have more control of their movement
thus they are able to maintain optimal performance (Knox etal, 1986)
Water exercises are rapidly growing in popularity. An advantage of aquatic

exercises is that it can involve the upper and lower extremities through optimal range
of motion while minimizing joints stress (Len Kravity and J.J.Mayo). Deep water
exercise are promoted in physical training programmes, particularly during
rehabilitation from injury and light recovery session immediately after or the day
following competitive games or exhaustive workouts. The exercises are conducted in
the deep end of a swimming pool with the body kept up by means of a buoyancy belt.
This mode of exercise is employed as a means of preventing soft-tissue injury in the
lower limbs, as impact with the ground is avoided, reducing the load on skeletal
structures (Dowzer, Reilly and Cable, 1998).
This form of exercise in water can provide a training stimulus for the oxygen
transport system with suitably designed exercise programme (Dowzer, Reilly, Cable
and Navill, 1999). The reduction of the gravitational pull and increased flotation
provided by buoyancy will support our body frame. It will reduce the weight, our
joints are normally required to carry when standing or moving on land. This allows
the joints to lift and separate and will decrease the compression they normally
experience during land based exercise programmes.
Most land based exercise programmes involve the performance of some

vigorous jogging and jumping activities that involves the body being lifted
momentarily from the ground. These activities increase the weight borne by the joints,
because the forces of gravity pull the body weight back down at a greater velocity,
increasing the force exerted on the joints during landing. Such activities are
2
traditionally classified by exercise professionals as high impact. A key disadvantage
of these activities is that they plays enormous stress on the joints and can therefore
potentially increase the risk of injury. To enhance the safety of land based training
programme the activities need to be altered to vary the impact and stress placed on the
joints.
However, because the gravitational pull is reduced when immersed in water,

the impact forces are lessened. Therefore, the impact normally received when
performing such activities is dramatically reduced. They can therefore be performed
for a longer duration and more frequently, without increasing the risk of injury.
Therefore, water based exercises can provide an excellent form of cross training for
the sports performance.
Long term benefits of flexibility training are improvement in range of motion

in the joints and muscles, improvement in posture and joint alignment, improvement
in performances of sporting and everyday activities, reduction of tension in the
muscles and reduced risk of injury when moving into extended positions. Water based
exercising appears to be particularly effective for improving our social fitness.
The reduced effects of gravitational pull will automatically reduce some of the
physical stress on the body. The increased effects of buoyancy will create flotation of
the limbs, allowing the muscles to slightly relax. It will also support the weight of the
body, decreasing the compression of the joints and allowing them to move more
freely and with greater ease. The hydrostatic pressure exerted against the body will
promote the circulation of a greater volume of blood and assist with removal of waste
products that potentially may contribute to the physical tension. There is also some
evidence that immersion in the water will reduce the activity of the sympathetic
nervous system, which is most active during times of stress when we are preparing for
fight or flight (Hall,1994).
Exercising in water can provide a stimulating and invigorating effect on the

body in an environment which reduces tension and physical stress. However, it is
worth noting that participants who are less confident in water may not experience
quite the same levels of relaxation as a confident participant. Therefore, specific
3
relaxation exercises performed at the end of the session are the perfect way to finish if
the pool is sufficiently warm.
A well structured water-based exercise programme has the potential to bring

about all the necessary improvements to physical and total fitness, in a far less
stressful environment. However, exercise in water cannot be claimed to be a remedy
for all ills. Moreover, it is just one method of promoting physical activity and
improving total fitness.
The primary aim of post-session training is to provide an active recovery

period for the body. The body will need time to recover from the stresses placed on it
from competitive activity. The programme of activities provided at this stage should
be sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of physical fitness, but they should be less
demanding. A greater emphasis can be placed on mobility and stretching activities.
The additional benefit of exercising in water during post-session training is that the
pressure of the water against the body will create a massaging effect. This will assist
the relaxation of the body and help to reduce physical and mental tension.
Impact shock is one of the most common culprits in muscle soreness and joint
pain after exercise. Water’s buoyancy takes the pressure of the joint capsule, and in
combination with the water’s warmth, this increases the ability to move comfortably
and with increase flexibility. The risk of joint pain is reduced and existing joint pain
can be relieved while exercising appropriately in water.
Recovery is a proactive self initiated process to re-establish psychological and

physiological resources. Active recovery such as muscle relaxation and stretching are
known as cool-down activities after practice and competition. The purpose of those
exercises is to eliminate the results of fatigue through aimed physical activity. During
cool-down, an increased blood circulations in the muscles results in a high state of
metabolism; lactic acid does not have a chance to build up in the muscles, and the
blood gases can more quickly sink to a normal level. Light exercise is superior to rest
during recovery period because a faster rate of blood flow is maintained. Thus, more
lactic acid can be removed from muscle in less time. At lower levels of effort,
including complete rest, the rate of removal is slower. If the effort is too high,
however, additional lactic acid will be produced (Maglischo, 1993).
4
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study was to know the effect of low-impact water exercises
on stress recovery of college football players.
Delimitations
1. The study was delimited to 30 male football players aged 18-23 years.
2. The study was further delimited to football players of S.A.I, L.N.C.P.E,
Trivandrum.
3. The study was further delimited to Stress Recovery.
Limitations
1. Questionnaire research has its limitations, any bias that may enter into the subject
on this account maybe considered as a limitation to this study.
2. The life style, diet, health habits which might have an effect on the result, was
considered as the limitation of the study.
Hypothesis
It was hypothesised that there would be improvement in stress recovery following

sixteen weeks of low-impact water exercises.
Definition and Explanation of Terms
Low-impact water exercise
The activity performed in the water gently with less collision.
5
Stress
Stress is a process initiated when brain interprets an internal or external

stimulus as potentially threatening or damaging to the individual (physically or
psychologically). (Morris, 1982)
Stress in individuals is defined as an interference that disturbs a person’s

healthy mental and physical wellbeing. It occurs when the body is required to perform
beyond its normal range of capabilities. (Tim handle, 1998)
Recovery
Recovery is a proactive self-initiated process to reestablish physiological and

psychological resources depleted following an acute bout of exercise to its pre
exercise condition.
Significance of the Study
1. To know the effect of low-impact water exercises on stress recovery in

footballers.
2. To educate the football players on the importance of recovery for their
performance gain.
3. The result of the study may help in incorporating low-impact water exercises in
regular training programme.
6
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The effort has been made by the researcher to locate literature related to this
study, the relevant studies found from various sources, which the researcher has come
across, are cited below.
Jeremy Ingrama, etal (2007) conducted a study on the effect of water

immersion methods on post-exercise recovery from simulated team sport exercise.
The study aimed to compare the efficacy of hot/cold contrast water immersion (CWI),
cold-water immersion (COLD) and no recovery treatment (control) as post-exercise
recovery methods following exhaustive simulated team sports exercise. Repeated
sprint ability, strength, muscle soreness and inflammatory markers were measured
across the 48-h post-exercise period. Eleven male team-sport athletes completed three
3-day testing trials, each separated by 2 weeks. Participants performed one of the
post-exercise recovery procedures for 15 min. At 48 h post-exercise, the performance
tests were repeated. Blood samples and muscle soreness ratings were taken before and
immediately after post-exercise, and at 24h and 48 h post-exercise. In comparison to
the control and CWI treatments, COLD resulted in significantly lower (p<0.05)
muscle soreness ratings, as well as in reduced decrements to isometric leg extension
and flexion strength in the 48-h post-exercise period. COLD also facilitated a more
rapid return to baseline repeated sprint performances. The only benefit of CWI over
control was a significant reduction in muscle soreness 24h post-exercise. This study
demonstrated that COLD following exhaustive simulated team sports exercise offers
greater recovery benefits than CWI or control treatments.
Vaile J, Halson S, Gill N, Dawson B.(2007) conducted a study on the effect of

hydrotherapy on the signs and symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness. The study
independently examined the effects of three hydrotherapy interventions on the
physiological and functional symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).
Strength trained males (n = 38) completed two experimental trials separated by 8
7
months in a randomized crossover design; one trial involved passive recovery (PAS,
control), the other a specific hydrotherapy protocol for 72 h post-exercise; either: (1)
cold water immersion (CWI: n = 12), (2) hot water immersion (HWI: n = 11) or (3)
contrast water therapy (CWT: n = 15). For each trial, subjects performed a DOMS-
inducing leg press protocol followed by PAS or one of the hydrotherapy interventions
for 14 min. Weighted squat jump, isometric squat, perceived pain, thigh girths and
blood variables were measured prior to, immediately after, and at 24, 48 and 72 h
post-exercise. Squat jump performance and isometric force recovery were
significantly enhanced (P < 0.05) at 24, 48 and 72 h post-exercise following CWT and
at 48 and 72 h post-exercise following CWI when compared to PAS. Isometric force
recovery was also greater (P < 0.05) at 24, 48, and 72 h post-exercise following HWI
when compared to PAS. Perceived pain improved (P < 0.01) following CWT at 24, 48
and 72 h post-exercise. Overall, CWI and CWT were found to be effective in reducing
the physiological and functional deficits associated with DOMS, including improved
recovery of isometric force and dynamic power and a reduction in localized oedema.
While HWI was effective in the recovery of isometric force, it was ineffective for
recovery of all other markers compared to PAS.
M Suzuki, etal (2003) conducted a study on the effect of incorporating low

intensity exercise into the recovery period after a rugby match. Fifteen Japanese
college rugby football players were studied. Seven performed only normal daily
activities and eight performed additional low intensity exercise during the post-match
rest period. Players were examined just before and immediately after the match and
one and two days after the match. Blood biochemistry and two neutrophil functions,
phagocytic activity and oxidative burst, were measured to assess physiological
condition, and the profile of mood states (POMS) scores were examined to evaluate
psychological condition. It was found that Rugby matches impose both physiological
and psychological stress on players. The addition of low intensity exercise to the rest
period did not adversely affect physiological recovery and had a significantly
beneficial effect on psychological recovery by enhancing relaxation.
Timothy B, etal (2009) undergone a study titled “Load, stress, and recovery in
adolescent rugby union players during a competitive season”. This study describes
psychological stress-recovery responses relative to training loads in 106 male
8
adolescent rugby union players. The results showed that players with the highest
training and physical activity volumes during the season demonstrated more favorable
recovery-stress states than moderate- and low-volume groups. Stress and under-
recovery did not increase with increases in weekly volume when assessed across a
season. When assessed more acutely during intensive competition phases, stress and
under-recovery increased with increases in participation demands. Despite better
psychological stress and recovery profiles of more elite, higher-load players, not all
participants demonstrated favorable capacities to deal with stress and recovery
processes. Seven participants were in at least two of three categories of highest
volume, highest stress, and poorest recovery. Even in the absence of a full
understanding of the impact of high-volume, high-stress, poor-recovery participation
among adolescent athletes, these markers may be precursors for more deleterious
outcomes such as injury, performance decrements, and overtraining.
Halson Shona, L. etal. (2008) pursued a study on the physiological responses

to cold water immersion following cycling in the heat. Purpose was to examine the
safety and acute thermoregulatory, cardiovascular, metabolic, endocrine, and
inflammatory responses to cold water immersion following cycling in the heat. :
Eleven male endurance trained cyclists completed two simulated approximately 40-
min time trials at 34.3 +/- 1.1 degrees C. All subjects completed both a CWI trial
(11.5 degrees C for 60 s repeated three times) and a control condition (CONT; passive
recovery in 24.2 +/- 1.8 degrees C) in a randomized cross-over design. Capillary
blood samples were assayed for lactate, glucose, pH, and blood gases. Venous blood
samples were assayed for catecholamines, cortisol, testosterone, creatine kinase, C-
reactive protein, IL-6, and IGF-1 on 7 of the 11 subjects. Heart rate (HR), rectal (Tre),
and skin temperatures (Tsk) were measured throughout recovery. CWI elicited a
significantly lower HR (CWI: Delta 116 +/- 9 bpm vs. CONT: Delta 106 +/- 4 bpm; P
= .02), Tre (CWI: Delta 1.99 +/- 0.50 degrees C vs. CONT: Delta 1.49 +/- 0.50
degrees C; P = .01) and Tsk. However, all other measures were not significantly
different between conditions. All participants subjectively reported enhanced
sensations of recovery following cold water immersion. They concluded that cold
water immersion did not result in hypothermia and can be considered safe following
high intensity cycling in the heat, using the above protocol. Cold water immersion
9
significantly reduced heart rate and core temperature; however, all other metabolic
and endocrine markers were not affected by cold water immersion.
Wilcock, Ian, (2005) during his Master of Health Science conducted a study
on the effect of water immersion, active recovery and passive recovery on repeated
bouts of explosive exercise and blood plasma fraction. A physiological rationale that
may explain the possibility of enhanced recovery with water immersion was initially
investigated. The literature surrounding active recovery, water immersion and passive
recovery on strength, cycling, running and jumping was then examined. Following
these reviews an experimental study was conducted investigating the effects of water
immersion, active recovery and passive recovery conducted after repeated bouts of
explosive exercise. Researchers have observed this increased substrate metabolism
with reductions in post-exercise blood lactate accumulation following active recovery.
Water immersion would appear to cause a similar physiological response to active
recovery without the need to expend extra energy. When a large portion of the body is
immersed, hydrostatic pressure acts on the body's fluids within the immersed region.
Fluids from the extra vascular space move into the vascular system reducing exercise-
induced increases in muscular volume and reducing soft tissue inflammation.
Additionally, blood volume increases and is redistributed towards the central cavity,
which in turn increases cardiac preload, stroke volume, cardiac output, and blood flow
throughout the body. Cardiac output increases in relation to the depth of immersion
and have been observed to increase by as much as 102% during head-out immersions.
Research that has observed significant benefits of active recovery and water
immersion compared to passive recovery have used recovery times greater of 15
minutes or more. Overall there is a meager amount of research into active recovery,
water immersion and passive recovery. Further research that incorporates a variety of
exercise and recovery protocols is required.
Antonio Tessitore, etal.(2008) pursued a study on the effectiveness of active

versus passive recovery strategies after futsal games. The study aimed to investigate
the effects of immediate postgame recovery interventions (seated rest, supine
electrostimulation, low-intensity land exercises, and water exercises) on anaerobic
performance (countermovement jump [CMJ], bounce jumping, 10-m sprint),
hormones (salivary cortisol, urinary catecholamines), and subjective ratings (rate of
10
perceived exertion [RPE], leg muscle pain, Questionnaire of Recovery Stress for
Athletes [RestQ Sport], 10-point Likert scale), and hours of sleep of futsal players.
Heart rate (HR), blood lactate, and RPE were used to evaluate the intensity of 4 futsal
games in 10 players using a crossover design (P < 0.05), randomly allocating athletes
to 1 of the 4recovery interventions at the end of each game. No significant difference
emerged between HR, blood lactate, RPE, and level of hydration of the games. A
significant difference (P < 0.001) between games emerged for total urinary
catecholamines, with an increase from the first to the second game and a gradual
reduction up to the fourth game. After the game, significant reductions in CMJ (P <
0.001) and 10-m sprints (P < 0.05) emerged. No significant difference was found
between recovery interventions for anaerobic performances, hormones, muscle pain,
and RestQ Sport. Even though a well-balanced diet, re hydration, and controlled
lifestyle might represent a sufficient recovery intervention in young elite athletes, the
players perceived significantly increased benefit (P < 0.01) from the electro
stimulation (7.8 +/- 1.4 points) and water exercises (7.6 +/- 2.1 points) compared to
dry exercises (6.6 +/- 1.8 points) and seated rest (5.2 +/- 0.8 points.), which might
improve their attitude toward playing. To induce progressive hormonal adaptation to
the high exercise load of multiple games, in the last 2 weeks of the preseason, coaches
should organize friendly games at a level similar to that of the competitive season.
Rowsell Greg J, etal (2009), work on the study the effects of cold-water
immersion on physical performance between successive matches in high-performance
junior male soccer players. In this study, they investigated the effect of water
immersion on physical test performance and perception of fatigue/recovery during a
4-day simulated soccer tournament. Twenty high-performance junior male soccer
players (age 15.9 +/- 0.6 years) played four matches in 4 days and undertook either
cold-water immersion (10 +/- 0.5 degrees C) or thermoneutral water immersion (34
+/- 0.5 degrees C) after each match. Physical performance tests (countermovement
jump height, heart rate, and rating of perceived exertion after a standard 5-min run
and 12 x 20-m repeated sprint test), intracellular proteins, and inflammatory markers
were recorded approximately 90 min before each match and 22 h after the final
match. Perceptual measures of recovery (physical, mental, leg soreness, and general
fatigue) were recorded 22 h after each match. There were non-significant reductions
in countermovement jump height (1.7-7.3%, P = 0.74, eta(2) = 0.34) and repeated
11
sprint ability (1.0-2.1%, P = 0.41, eta(2) = 0.07) over the 4-day tournament with no
differences between groups. Post-shuttle run rating of perceived exertion increased
over the tournament in both groups (P < 0.001, eta(2) = 0.48), whereas the perceptions
of leg soreness (P = 0.004, eta(2) = 0.30) and general fatigue (P = 0.007, eta(2) =
0.12) were lower in the cold-water immersion group than the thermoneutral
immersion group over the tournament. Creatine kinase (P = 0.004, eta(2) = 0.26) and
lactate dehydrogenase (P < 0.001, eta(2) = 0.40) concentrations increased in both
groups but there were no changes over time for any inflammatory markers. The
results suggest that immediate post-match cold-water immersion does not affect
physical test performance or indices of muscle damage and inflammation but does
reduce the perception of general fatigue and leg soreness between matches in
tournaments.
12
Chapter III
PROCEDURE
This chapter describes methodology and procedure of the study. It includes the
selection of subjects, variables, administration of test items, training programmes and
statistical techniques employed for analyses of the data.
Selection of Subjects
The purpose of the study was to know the effect of low impact water exercises
on stress recovery of college football players. To achieve this purpose thirty male
football players between the age group of 18 years to 23 years of S.A.I, L.N.C.P.E,
Trivandrum, were selected as subjects for the study. They were randomly assigned to
control group and experimental group of fifteen each for a period of 16 weeks.
Variables
The major variable tested was Stress-Recovery. This Stress-Recovery had sub-
variables as follows
1. General stress.
2. Emotional stress.
3. Social stress.
4. Conflict/pressure.
5. Fatigue.
6. Lack of energy.
7. Physical/Somatic complaints.
8. Success.
9. Social recovery.
10. Physical/Somatic recovery.
11. General well-being.
12. Sleep quality.
13
13. Disturbed breaks.
14. Emotional exhaustion.
15. Injury
16. Being in shape.
17. Personal accomplishment.
18. Self-efficacy.
19. Self-regulation.
Description of Tool
RESTQ-76 by Michael Kellmann and K. Wolfgang Kallus (2002) is made up

of seventy six set of questions which measure nineteen variables on seven point scales
ranging from zero point to six points was executed. For few variables lowest scores
represent the highest stress recovery and for others highest score represent the highest
stress recovery.
The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes identifies the current

recovery-stress states of athletes and provides a complete picture of the extent of
stress they are experiencing. The questionnaire is based on the hypothesis that an
accumulation of stress in different areas of life, with insufficient opportunity for
recovery, leads to a compromised psychophysical state. Stress states are based on 12
non-specific and seven sport-specific scales. These scales draw a precise profile of an
athlete's state, which demonstrates the difference between the Recovery-Stress
Questionnaire for Athletes and other popular measurement tools, which measure only
current mood states.
Reliability
Kallus (1995) has shown that the test-retest reliability of all general stress and
recovery scales is quite high after 24 hours for an instrument that records variable
states. The consistently high short-term stability clearly shows the reliability of the
procedure. The test retest reliability always lies clearly above r = 0.79, which implies
that intra individual differences in the recovery-stress state can be well reproduce.
Moreover, the high test-retest reliability shows that the results of the RESTQ-76 are
14
stable concerning short-term changes in recovery-stress state.
Administration of the Test
The subjects of control and experimental groups were administrated by the

RESTQ-76 questionnaire before the start of the experimental training session, in
between the experimental training session and finally after the experimental training
session.
The objective and the procedure of the study were explained to the subjects
and coaches during a pre experimental meeting. In case of any doubt that was
clarified by the investigator.
Experimental Design
The random group design was used as experimental design for this study. The
subjects selected for this study were randomly divided into two groups. Both the
groups under went regular football practice sessions. Experimental training
programme was executed on one group, where as for another group there was no such
programme.
The weekly micro cycles were as follows:-
Table 1
Micro cycle illustrating various kinds of training and recovery period given to the
control group weekly
Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Morning W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U Rest
Acts. Acts. Acts. Acts. Acts. Acts.
C.D C.D C.D C.D C.D C.D
Evening W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U Rest
W.U = Warming up; Acts. = Football practice session and regular activities;
C.D = Cooling down.
15
Table 2
Micro cycle illustrating various kinds of training and recovery period given to the
experimental group weekly
Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Morning W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U Rest
Evening W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U W.U Rest
L.I.W.E. L.I.W.E. L.I.W.E.
W.U = Warming up; Acts. = Football practice session and regular activities;
C.D = Cooling down; L.I.W.E = Low-impact water exercises.
Experimental Training Programme
The following exercises was given weekly thrice for a period of thirty minutes
to improve the rate of stress recovery.
Table 3
Terminal warm up for three minutes in shallow area
1. Water walk. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 6 meters. 2 sets

2. Pedal jog. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 8 times. 2 sets
3. Pomp and circumstance. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 5 meters. 2 sets
4. Knees lift jog/march. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 8 times. 2 sets
5. Kick up your heels. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 8 times. 2 sets
6. Knees lift kick. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 5 times. 2 sets
Intensity was such that the heart rate was maintained bellow 100 beats per minutes.
16
Table 4
Warm-up stretches for five minutes in shallow area
1. Outer thigh stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2

sets.
2. Lower back stretch with 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
ankle rotation. sets.
3. Front of thigh stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
sets.
4. Shin stretch and shoulder 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
shrug. sets.
5. Inner thighs step out. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
sets.
6. Hip flexor stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
sets.
7. Bent knee calf stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
sets.
8. Hamstring stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
sets.
9. Deep muscle buttocks 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
stretch. sets.
10. Mid back stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 2
sets.
11. Elbow press back. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 2
sets.
12. Chest stretch with 20(10 + 10) seconds. 2
shoulder rolls. sets.
13. Upper back stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 2
sets.
14. Torso and shoulder 20(10 + 10) seconds. 2
stretch. sets.
15. Shoulder and upper arm 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2
stretch. sets.
17
Table 5
Initial aerobic activities of very low intensity for five minutes in the 1.5 meter depth
area
1. Snake walk. 30(15 +15) seconds. 5 meters. 2 sets.

2. Step wide side. 30(15 +15) seconds. 3 meter each side. 2 sets.
3. Hydro jack. 30(15 +15) seconds. 5 times. 2 sets.
4. Cross country ski. 30(15 +15) seconds. 5 times. 2 sets.
5. Sailor’s jig. 30(15 +15) seconds. 5 time each side. 2 sets.
6. Figure eight. 30(15 +15) seconds. 4 times. 2 sets.
7. Side twists. 30(15 +15) seconds. 4 times each side. 2 sets.
8. Water scoops. 30(15 +15) seconds. 3 meters. 2 sets.
9. Travelling flick kick. 30(15 +15) seconds. 2 times with each leg. 2 sets.
10. Water push. 30(15 +15) seconds. 4 meters. 2 sets.
Table 6
Flotation exercises with equipments for ten minutes in deep area
1. Catching floaters and putting another below chest low

intensity swimming. Or At list 75
Holding floaters with hands and putting waist floating belt meters
low intensity swimming. Or 5 should be
Holding floaters with hands performing low intensity minutes. covered.
swimming.
2. Holding floating ring, standing vertically and performing
underwater cycling. Or
Holding floaters and putting waist floating belt, standing
vertically performing under water cycling. Or 5 minutes.
Wearing floating jacket and standing vertically performing
under water cycling.
18
Table 7
Relaxation exercises for seven minutes in shallow water
1. Relaxing with group. 2 minutes.

2. Relaxing with partner. 2 minutes.
3. Relaxing with the help of floating equipments. 3 minutes.
Intensity was such that the heart rate was maintained below 110 beats per minute.
Collection of Data
The data was collected by RESTQ-76 Sport questionnaire (manual by Michael

Kellmenn, 2002) before starting of training session (13/11/2009), at the middle of the
training session (11/01/2010) and after the low-impact water exercises training
session (08/03/2010).
Statistical Techniques
Descriptive statistics was employed for each of the selected variables of

RESTQ-76 for the experimental and controlled group.
To determine the difference between the pre test and post test result for the
experimental and controlled group paired t-test was computed for each variables of
RESTQ-76.
ANCOVA to test the significance of ‘adjusted mid-test mean’ differences and

‘adjusted post-test mean’ differences between the control and experimental groups for
each of the selected variables was employed.
The level of significance chosen was P<0.01 and P<0.05.
19
Chapter IV
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES USED FOR THE

ANALYSIS OF DATA
The data on respective variables of each subject in Control and Experimental

were consolidated for statistical analysis. The following statistical techniques were
used for the analysis of the collected data.
(i) The essential descriptive statistics such as Arithmetic Mean (AM) and
Standard Deviation (SD), which help to describe a data distribution, were
calculated.
(ii) Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for finding the significance of
adjusted midtest and posttest mean difference between control and
experimental group.
(iii) Bonferroni post hoc test for finding whether there is any statistically
significant pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean differences in
the respective variables of control and experimental groups.
(iv) Bar diagrams for easy comparison of mean difference and percentage gain
are incorporated.
In all the statistical tests, the level of significance was chosen to be 1% or 5%

and if the calculated P-value (Probability of Type I Error, in statistical terminology) is
less than 0.01 or 0.05, there exists statistically significant mean difference between
the two groups.
ANALYSIS IN DETAIL
The measures of central values and dispersion are sample values, descriptive
of the distributions and are of much useful when compare different samples. The
sample statistics like AM and SD were computed for each variable in the two groups
to determine the nature of sample statistics and to compare the scores of two groups in
the analysis.
20
It is to be noticed that the individuals in the control and experimental groups
may vary widely in the initial pre-test scores and also due to other extraneous factors.
That means we cannot allocate the participants, who have exactly same initial
conditions to control and experimental groups. If we use analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for testing the significance of the difference between the post test means of
the control and experimental groups, then we are ignoring the influence of the initial
pre-test scores to the mid test and final post test scores. Part of the variation in the mid
test and post-test scores in the control and experimental groups are due to the
influence of these initial pre-test scores also. That means we cannot say that the
changes in the mid test and post test means of the control and experimental groups are
due to experimental training method but part of the variation in the pre-test means are
due to the initial scores also. These pre-test scores are called ‘covariates’. Therefore to
eliminate or to keep under control the effect due to these covariates (pre-test scores)
from the mid test scores and post-test scores, the data should be analyzed by the
technique of ANCOVA rather than ANOVA. In ANOVA there will not be any
covariate (that is pre-test values). ANCOVA tests the significance of ‘adjusted mid-
test mean’ and ‘adjusted post-test mean’ differences between the control and
experimental groups for each of the selected variables. Adjusted mid-test means are
the mid test means after eliminating the effect due to the pre-test (initial) scores and
adjusted post-test means are the post test means after eliminating the effect due to the
pre-test (initial) scores. The adjusted technique serves to remove from the mid and
final scores that portion which is due to the relation between covariate (pre-test
scores) and the mid and final scores, and, in doing so, adjusts for the initial inter
subject differences. So it become necessary that the scores be analyzed using the
technique of analysis of covariance for much more reliable result.
COMPARISON OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP BASED ON

GENERAL STRESS SCORES
The important characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and

posttest General Stress scores of Students in Control and Experimental are presented
in Table below.
21
Table 8
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest General
Stress scores of students in control and experimental group
General Stress Group N Mean SD

Con. 15 9.0000 4.37526
Pretest Exp. 15 12.3333 4.09994
Con. 15 9.2667 4.63630
Midtest Exp. 15 7.1333 2.26358
Con. 15 10.8000 3.98569
Posttest Exp. 15 5.6667 3.63842
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest general stress score of control
group is 9.0000 with SD 4.37526 and that of experimental group is 12.3333 with SD
4.09994. The mean midtest general stress score of control group is 9.2667 with SD
4.63630 and that of experimental group is 7.1333 with SD 2.26358. The mean posttest
general stress score of control group is 10.8000 with SD 3.98569 and that of
experimental group is 5.6667 with SD 3.63842.
Genuineness of difference in performance of Control and Experimental groups
Analysis of covariance is now carried for the midtest and posttest general
stress scores after eliminating the effect of pretest scores. Adjusted final midtest and
posttest scores were subjected to ANCOVA to test whether there is any difference in
the adjusted midtest and posttest means scores in the general stress of experimental
and control groups. The ANCOVA table is given below.
22
Table 9
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest General Stress scores of experimental
and control group
General Stress Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

score Variation Squares Square Ratio Value
Between
58.031 1 58.031
Groups
Adjusted 4.630 0.041*
Within Groups 338.398 27 12.533
midtest
396.429 28
Total
Between
280.406 1 280.406
Groups
Adjusted 24.414 0.001**
Within Groups 310.112 27 11.486
posttest
Total 590.518 28
* Significant at 0.05 level, **Significant at 0.01 level
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted mid test is 4.63 which is significant
(P<0.05) at 0.05 level since the table values for F with degrees of freedom(df) 1\27 is
4.21 at 0.05 level and 7.66 at 0.01 level ( 1 df is lost because of the presence of
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test general stress scores
shows that the two mid mean scores, viz. the mid mean score in the control group and
experimental group do differ significantly after they have been adjusted for
differences in pretest scores.
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted post test is 24.414 which is significant
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test general stress scores
shows that the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control group and
23
Table 10
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean General Stress scores of control and
experimental group
Group Adjusted midtest Adjusted Posttest
Control 9.702 11.534
Experimental 6.698 4.933
Figure 1: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of General Stress
scores in the control group and experimental group
GENERAL STRESS MEANS
14.00
12.33
12.00 11.53
10.80
10.00 9.27 9.70
9.00
8.00 7.13 6.70
5.67 Control
6.00 4.93
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
PRE MID Adjusted POST Adjusted
midtest Posttest
24
Table 11
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of General Stress scores
in the control and experimental group
Control Group
PRE MID POST MD GAIN t-value P-value SE
9.000 9.267 0.267 2.963 0.227 0.824 1.177
9.000 10.800 1.800 20.000 2.320 0.036* 0.776
9.267 10.800 1.533 16.546 1.542 0.145 0.995
Experimental Group
12.333 7.133 -5.200 -42.162 4.197 0.001** 1.239
12.333 5.667 -6.667 -54.054 5.229 0.0001** 1.275
7.133 5.667 -1.467 -20.560 1.212 0.246 1.211
From the table, it is seen that the pre to mid test mean difference (MD) is
0.267 with percentage gain of 2.963 and standard error of mean difference (SE) is
1.177, the calculated t value was 0.227 with P>0.05. Thus there is no statistically
significant pre to mid test mean difference in general stress scores of control group.
The t value for pre to post is 2.32, significant at P<0.05 with percentage gains 20
control group. Thus there is statistically significant pre to mid test mean difference in
general stress scores of control group. The t value for mid to post is 1.542 with
P>0.05 with percentage gains 16.546 in control group. Thus there is statistically
significant mid to post test mean difference in general stress scores of control group.
The calculated t value in the pre to mid and pre to post test mean difference
score is 4.197 and 5.229 with MD -5.2, -6.667 respectively in general stress scores of
experimental group both of which is significant (P<0.01) at 0.01 level since the table t
value is 2.977 at 0.01 level. Where as calculated t value in the mid to post test in
general stress scores of experimental group is 1.212 with MD -1.467 which is not
significant at 0.05 level.
25
Figure 2: The percentage gain/loss of General Stress scores in control and
experimental group
GENERAL STRESS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
20.00
20.00 16.55
10.00 2.96
0.00
-10.00
-20.56 Control
-20.00
-30.00 Experim ental
-40.00 -42.16
-50.00 -54.05
-60.00
PRI to MID PRI TO POST MID TO POST

EMOTIONAL STRESS SCORES
Table 12
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest
Emotional Stress scores of students in control and experimental groups
Emotional Stress Group N Mean SD

Control 15 10.9333 3.19523
Pretest Experiment 15 11.1333 3.09069
Control 15 9.4667 3.44065
Midtest Experiment 15 8.2000 2.39643
Control 15 9.8667 3.94365
Posttest Experiment 15 7.0000 2.77746
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest emotional stress score of control
3.09069. The mean midtest emotional stress score of control group is 9.4667 with SD
3.44065and that of experimental group is 8.2000 with SD 2.39643. The mean posttest
emotional stress score of control group is 9.8667 with SD 3.94365 and that of
26
Table 13
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Emotional Stress scores of experimental
and control group
Emotional Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Stress Variation Squares Square
Score
Between Groups 13.549 1 13.549

Within Groups 203.922 27 7.553 1.794 0.192
Adjusted
217.471 28 21.102
midtest Total

Within Groups 324.823 27 12.030 5.159 0.031*
Adjusted
386.883 28 74.090
posttest Total
* Significant at 0.05 level
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted mid test is 1.794 which is not significant
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test emotional stress
scores shows that the two mid mean scores, viz. the mid mean score in the control
group and experimental group do not differ significantly after they have been adjusted
for differences in pretest scores.
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test emotional stress scores
27
Table 14
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Emotional Stress scores of control and
experimental group
Control 9.506 9.872
Stress scores in the control group and experimental group
EMOTIONAL STRESS MEANS
12.00 11.13
10.93
9.47 9.51 9.87 9.87
10.00
8.20 8.16
8.00 7.00 6.99
6.00 Control
4.00 Experim ental
2.00
0.00
m idtest Posttest
28
Table 15
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Emotional Stress
scores in the control and experimental group
Control Group
10.933 9.467 -1.467 -13.414 1.482 0.161 0.990
10.933 9.867 -1.067 -9.756 0.757 0.462 1.409
9.467 9.867 0.400 4.225 0.389 0.703 1.027
Experimental Group
11.133 8.200 -2.933 -26.347 4.231 0.001** 0.693
11.133 7.000 -4.133 -37.126 4.831 0.0001** 0.856
8.200 7.000 -1.200 -14.634 1.457 0.167 0.823
**Significant at 0.01 level
From the table, it is seen that the pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test
emotional stress mean difference scores are -1.467, -1.067and 0.4 with calculated t
values 1.482, 0.757 and 0.389 respectively in control group. The table t value is 2.145
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the mean
difference scores in control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
emotional stress mean difference scores are -2.933, -4.133 and -1.200 with calculated
t values 4.231, 4.831 and 1.457 respectively in experimental group. The table t value
is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid, pre
to post mean difference scores in experimental group are significant at 0.01 levels and
for mid to post emotional stress mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05
levels.
29
Figure 4: The percentage gain/loss of Emotional Stress scores in control and
experimental group
EMOTIONAL STRESS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
10.00 4.23
0.00
-9.76
-10.00 -13.41
v -14.63 Control
-26.35
-30.00
-37.13
-40.00

SOCIAL STRESS SCORES
Table 16
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Social
Stress scores of students in control and experimental group
Social Stress Group N Mean SD

Control 15 8.2000 3.66840
Control 15 8.6000 4.06729
midtest Experiment 15 7.4667 2.58752
Control 15 10.5333 3.73911
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest social stress score of control group
is 8.2000 with SD 3.66840 and that of experimental group is 12.1333 with SD
4.59606. The mean mid test social stress score of control group is 8.6000 with SD
social stress score of control group is 10.5333 with SD 3.73911 and that of
30
Table 17
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Social Stress scores of experimental and
control group
Social Stress Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

Between
18.077 1 18.077
Groups
Adjusted 1.553 0.223
Within Groups 314.245 27 11.639
midtest
332.322 28
Total
Between
189.956 1 189.956
Groups
Adjusted 15.474 0.001**
Within Groups 331.437 27 12.275
posttest
Total 521.393 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test social stress scores
experimental group do not differ significantly after they have been adjusted for
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test social stress scores shows
that the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control group and
31
Table 18
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Social Stress scores of control and experimental
group
Control 8.898 11.235
Figure 5: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Social Stress
SOCIAL STRESS MEANS
14.00
12.13
12.00 11.24
10.53
10.00 8.90
8.20 8.60
8.00 7.47 7.17 Control
6.33
6.00 5.63 Experim ental
4.00
2.00
0.00
m idtest Posttest
32
Table 19
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Social Stress scores
Control Group
8.200 8.600 0.400 4.878 0.334 0.743 1.198
8.200 10.533 2.333 28.455 2.243 0.042* 1.040
8.600 10.533 1.933 22.480 2.007 0.064 0.963
Experimental Group
12.133 7.467 -4.667 -38.461 3.558 0.003** 1.312
12.133 6.333 -5.800 -47.802 4.817 0.0001** 1.204
7.467 6.333 -1.133 -15.179 1.199 0.251 0.946
social stress mean difference scores are 0.400, 2.333 and 1.933 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and mid to
post test social stress mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where
as pre to post social stress mean difference score is significant at 0.05 levels.
social stress mean difference scores are -4.667, -5.800 and -1.133 with calculated t
values 3.558, 4.817, 1.199 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and pre
for mid to post social stress mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels.
33
Figure 6: The percentage gain/loss of Social Stress scores in control and
experimental group
SOCIAL STRESS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
28.45
30.00 22.48
20.00
10.00 4.88
0.00
-10.00 Control
-15.18
-30.00
-38.46
-40.00
-47.80
-50.00

CONFLICTS/PRESSURE SCORES
Table 20
Conflict/Pressure scores of students in control and experimental group
Conflict/Pressure Group N Mean SD

Control 15 10.8667 2.77403
Control 15 8.6667 3.28778
Control 15 10.2000 4.16104
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest conflict/pressure score of control
3.29213. The mean mid test conflict/pressure score of control group is 8.6667 with
SD 3.28778 and that of experimental group is 8.2667 with SD 2.08624. The mean
posttest conflict/pressure score of control group is 10.2000 with SD 4.16104 and that
of experimental group is 7.8667 with SD 3.33524.
34
Table 21
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Conflict/Pressure scores of experimental
and control group
Conflict/Pressure Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Score Variation Squares Square
Between
7.749 1 7.749
Adjusted midtest Groups
1.216 0.280
Within
172.012 27 6.371
Groups
Total 179.761 28
Between
71.820 1 71.820
Adjusted posttest Groups
5.961 0.021*
Within
325.303 27 12.048
Groups
Total 397.123 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test conflict/pressure
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test conflict/pressure scores
35
Table 22
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Conflict/Pressure scores of control and
experimental group
Control 8.995 10.642
Conflict/Pressure scores in the control group and experimental group
CONFLICT/PRESSURE MEANS
14.00
12.53
12.00 10.87
10.20 10.64
10.00 8.678.27 9.00
7.94 7.87
8.00 7.43
Control
6.00
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
36
Table 23
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Conflicts/Pressure
Control Group
10.867 8.667 -2.200 -20.245 2.955 0.010** 0.745
10.867 10.200 -0.667 -6.135 0.863 0.403 0.773
8.667 10.200 1.533 17.692 1.499 0.156 1.023
Experimental Group
12.533 8.267 -4.267 -34.042 5.033 0.0001** 0.848
12.533 7.867 -4.667 -37.234 4.216 0.001** 1.107
8.267 7.867 -0.400 -4.839 0.430 0.674 0.930
conflict/pressure mean difference scores are -2.200, -0.667and 1.533 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid
conflict/pressure mean difference score is significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to
post and mid to mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels in control
group.
conflict/pressure mean difference scores are -4.267, -4.667 and -0.400 with calculated
t values 5.033, 4.216 and 0.43 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and pre
for mid to post conflict/pressure mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05
levels.
37
Figure 8: The percentage gain/loss of Conflict/Pressure scores in control and
experimental group
CONFLICTS/PRESSURE PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
17.69
20.00
10.00
0.00
-6.14 -4.84
Control
-10.00
-20.25 Experimental
-20.00
-30.00 -34.04
-37.23
-40.00

FATIGUE SCORES
Table 24
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Fatigue
scores of students in control and experimental group
Fatigue Group N Mean SD

Control 15 8.8000 4.70865
Control 15 10.0000 3.72252
Control 15 10.8000 5.14365
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest fatigue score of control group is
8.8000 with SD 4.70865 and that of experimental group is 13.9333 with SD 5.41778.
The mean mid test fatigue score of control group is 10.0000 with SD 3.72252 and that
of experimental group is 8.1333 with SD 4.10342. The mean posttest fatigue score of
control group is 10.8000 with SD 5.14365 and that of experimental group is 6.8000
with SD 2.90812.
38
Table 25
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Fatigue scores of experimental and
control group
Fatigue Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

score Variation Squares Square

Within Groups 349.792 27 12.955 5.810 0.023*
Adjusted
425.056 28
midtest Total

Within Groups 428.707 27 15.878 11.141 0.002**
Adjusted
605.604 28
posttest Total
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test fatigue scores shows that
the two mid mean scores, viz. the mid mean score in the control group and
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted post test is 11.141which is significant

covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test fatigue scores shows that
the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control group and
39
Table 26
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Fatigue scores of control and experimental
group
Control 10.854 11.541
Figure 9: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Fatigue scores
in the control group and experimental group
FATIGUE MEANS
13.93
14.00
12.00 11.54
10.85 10.80
10.00
10.00 8.80
8.13
8.00 7.28
6.80
6.06 Control
6.00
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
40
Table 27
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Fatigue scores in the
control and experimental group
Control Group
8.800 10.000 1.200 13.636 1.099 0.290 1.092
8.800 10.800 2.000 22.727 1.840 0.087 1.087
10.000 10.800 0.800 8.000 0.708 0.491 1.131
Experimental Group
13.933 8.133 -5.800 -41.627 4.099 0.001** 1.415
13.933 6.800 -7.133 -51.196 4.425 0.001** 1.612
8.133 6.800 -1.333 -16.393 1.200 0.250 1.111
fatigue mean difference scores are 1.2, 2 and 0.8 with calculated t values 1.099, 1.84
and 0.708 respectively in control group. The table t value is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05
level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the mean difference scores in
control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
fatigue mean difference scores are -5.8, -7.133 and -1.333 with calculated t values
4.099, 4.425 and 1.2 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is 2.145 at
(P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and pre to post
fatigue mean difference scores in experimental group are significant at 0.01 levels and
for mid to post fatigue mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels.
41
Figure 10: The percentage gain/loss of Fatigue scores in control and experimental
group
FATIGUE PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
30.00 22.73
20.00 13.64
8.00
10.00
0.00
-10.00 -16.39 Control
-20.00
Experimental
-30.00
-40.00 -41.63
-50.00 -51.20
-60.00

LACK OF ENERGY SCORES
Table 28
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Lack of
Energy scores of students in control and experimental group
Lack of Energy Group N Mean SD

Control 15 9.8000 3.60951
Control 15 10.1333 3.24844
Control 15 10.6667 3.82971
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest lack of energy score of control
4.43149. The mean midtest general lack of energy of control group is 10.1333 with
posttest lack of energy score of control group is 10.6667 with SD 3.82971 and that of
experimental group is 6.7333with SD 4.06143.
42
Table 29
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Lack of Energy scores of experimental
and control group
Lack of Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Energy Variation Squares Square
score

Within Groups 291.166 27 10.784 2.993 0.095
Adjusted
323.441 28
midtest Total

Within Groups 373.124 27 13.819 11.065 0.003**
Adjusted
526.039 28
posttest Total
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test lack of energy scores
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test lack of energy scores
43
Table 30
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Lack of Energy scores of control and
experimental group
Control 10.302 11.026
Figure 11: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Lack of
Energy scores in the control group and experimental group
LACK OF ENERGY MEANS
12.00 11.73
10.67 11.03
10.13 10.30
9.80
10.00
8.33 8.17
8.00
6.73 6.37
6.00 Control
4.00 Experimental
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
44
Table 31
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Lack of Energy
Control Group
9.800 10.133 0.333 3.401 0.359 0.725 0.929
9.800 10.667 0.867 8.844 1.040 0.316 0.833
10.133 10.667 0.533 5.264 0.503 0.623 1.060
Experimental Group
11.733 8.333 -3.400 -28.977 2.400 0.031* 1.417
11.733 6.733 -5.000 -42.614 3.587 0.003** 1.394
8.333 6.733 -1.600 -19.200 1.791 0.095 0.893
lack of energy mean difference scores are 0.333, 0.867 and 0.533 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the mean
difference scores in control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
lack of energy mean difference scores are -3.4, -5 and -1.6 with calculated t values
(P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test lack of
energy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.05 levels, pre
to post lack of energy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at
0.01 levels and for mid to post lack of energy mean difference score is not significant
at 0.05 levels.
45
Figure 12: The percentage gain/loss of Lack of Energy scores in control and
experimental group
LACK of ENERGY PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
8.84
10.00 3.40 5.26
0.00
-10.00
-19.20 Control
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00 -42.61
-50.00

SOMATIC/PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS SCORES
Table 32
Somatic/Physical Complaints scores of students in control and experimental group
Somatic Complaints Group N Mean SD

Control 15 8.6000 5.13809
Control 15 8.1333 3.83344
Control 15 9.6000 4.71775
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest somatic complaints score of control
group is 8.6000with SD 5.13809 and that of experimental group is 13.2000 with SD
6.18985. The mean midtest somatic complaints score of control group is 8.1333 with
posttest somatic complaints score of control group is 9.6000 with SD 4.71775 and that
46
Table 33
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Somatic Complaints scores of
experimental and control group
Somatic Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Complaints Variation Squares Square
Score
Between
37.278 1 37.278
Adjusted Groups 4.161 0.051
midtest Within Groups 241.869 27 8.958
Total 279.147 28
Between
125.956 1 125.956
Adjusted Groups 6.584 0.016*
posttest Within Groups 516.560 27 19.132
Total 642.516 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test somatic complaints
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test somatic complaints scores
47
Table 34
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Somatic Complaints scores of control and
experimental group
Control 8.675 10.088
Somatic/Physical Complaints scores in the control group and experimental group
PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS MEANS
14.00 13.20
12.00
9.60 10.09
10.00
8.60 8.68
8.13
8.00 6.80
6.26 6.13 Control
6.00 5.65
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
48
Table 35
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Somatic/Physical
Complaints scores in the control and experimental group
Control Group
8.600 8.133 -0.467 -5.427 0.368 0.718 1.268
8.600 9.600 1.000 11.628 0.956 0.356 1.047
8.133 9.600 1.467 18.033 1.527 0.149 0.960
Experimental Group
13.200 6.800 -6.400 -48.485 4.454 0.001** 1.437
13.200 6.133 -7.067 -53.536 3.515 0.003** 2.011
6.800 6.133 -0.667 -9.804 0.546 0.594 1.222
somatic/physical complaints mean difference scores are -0.467, 1 and 1.467 with
calculated t values 0.368, 0.956 and 1.527 respectively in control group. The table t
value is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the
mean difference scores in control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
somatic/physical complaints mean difference scores are -6.4, -7.067 and -0.667 with
calculated t values 4.454, 3.515 and 0.546 respectively in experimental group. The
table t value is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre
to mid and pre to post somatic/physical complaints mean difference scores in
experimental group are significant at 0.01 levels and for mid to post somatic/physical
complaints mean difference score is not significant at 0.05 levels.
49
Figure 14: The percentage gain/loss of Somatic/Physical Complaints scores in
PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
18.03
20.00 11.63
0.00 -5.43
-9.80
-20.00 Control
Experim ental
-40.00
-48.48
-53.54
-60.00

SUCCESS SCORES
Table 36
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Success
Success Group N Mean SD

Control 15 13.6667 4.23703
Control 15 11.8667 3.09069
Control 15 9.9333 2.89005
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest success score of control group is
The mean midtest success score of control group is 11.8667 with SD 3.09069 and that
of experimental group is 11.9333 with SD 3.78845. The mean posttest success score
of control group is 9.9333 with SD 2.89005 and that of experimental group is 13.2667
with SD 6.04113.
50
Table 37
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Success scores of experimental and
control group
Success Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value


Within Groups 322.062 27 11.928 0.220 0.643
Adjusted
324.689 28
midtest Total

Within Groups 517.750 27 19.176 8.314 0.008**
Adjusted
677.171 28
posttest Total
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test success scores shows
that the two mid mean scores, viz. the mid mean score in the control group and
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test success scores shows that
51
Table 38
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Success scores of control and experimental
group
Control 11.576 9.073
Figure 15: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Success
SUCCESS MEANS
16.00
13.67 14.13
14.00 13.27
11.87 12.22
12.00 11.58
10.40 10.40 9.93
10.00 9.07
8.00 Control
6.00 Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
52
Table 39
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Success scores in the
Control Group
13.667 11.867 -1.800 -13.171 1.252 0.231 1.438
13.667 9.933 -3.733 -27.317 3.287 0.005** 1.136
11.867 9.933 -1.933 -16.293 1.776 0.098 1.089
Experimental Group
10.400 11.933 1.533 14.740 1.781 0.097 0.861
10.400 13.267 2.867 27.564 2.267 0.040* 1.264
11.933 13.267 1.334 11.177 1.113 0.284 1.198
success mean difference scores are -1.8, -3.733 and 1.933 with calculated t values
1.252, 3.287 and 1.776 respectively in control group. The table t value is 2.145 at
(P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and mid to post
test success mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to
post success mean difference scores are significant at 0.01 levels.
success mean difference scores are 1.533, 2.867 and 1.334 with calculated t values
test success mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to
post success mean difference score is significant at 0.05 levels.
53
Figure 16: The percentage gain/loss of Success scores in control and experimental
group
SUCCESS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
27.56
30.00
20.00 14.74
11.17
10.00
0.00 Control
Experim ental
-10.00 -13.17
-16.29
-20.00
-27.32
-30.00

SOCIAL RECOVERY SCORES
Table 40
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Social
recovery scores of students in control and experimental group
Social Recovery Group N Mean SD

Control 15 15.2000 3.12136
Control 15 12.0000 4.34248
Control 15 11.7333 3.99046
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest social recovery score of control
3.40168. The mean midtest social relaxation score of control group is 12.0000 with
posttest social recovery score of control group is 11.7333 with SD 3.99046 and that of
54
Table 41
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Social Recovery scores of experimental
and control group
Social Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Recovery Variation Squares Square
Score
3.655 0.067
Adjusted Within Groups 372.485 27 13.796
midtest Total 422.906 28
4.048 0.054
posttest Total 642.738 28
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted mid test is 3.655which is not significant
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test social recovery scores
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted post test is 4.048 which is not significant
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted post test social recovery scores
55
Table 42
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Social Recovery scores of control and
experimental group
Control 11.180 10.893
Figure 17: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Social
Recovery scores in the control group and experimental group
SOCIAL RECOVERY MEANS
16.00 15.20
14.09 14.64
13.27 13.80
14.00
12.00 12.00 11.73
12.00 11.18 10.89
10.00
Control
8.00
Experimental
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
56
Table 43
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Social recovery
Control Group
15.200 12.000 -3.200 -21.053 3.110 0.008** 1.029
15.200 11.733 -3.467 -22.807 3.790 0.002** 0.915
12.000 11.733 -0.267 -2.223 0.252 0.805 1.058
Experimental Group
12.000 13.267 1.267 10.556 1.235 0.237 1.026
12.000 13.800 1.800 15.000 1.229 0.239 1.465
13.267 13.800 0.533 4.020 0.357 0.727 1.496
social recovery mean difference scores are -3.2,-3.467 and -0.267 with calculated t
values 3.11, 3.79 and 0.252 respectively in control group. The table t value is 2.145 at
social recovery mean difference scores in control group are significant at 0.01 levels
and for mid to post social recovery complaints mean difference score is not significant
at 0.05 levels.
social recovery mean difference scores are 1.267, 1.8 and 0.533 with calculated t
values 1.235, 1.229 and 0.357 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the social
recovery means difference scores in experimental group are not significant at 0.05
levels.
57
Figure 18: The percentage gain/loss of Social Recovery scores in control and
experimental group
SOCIAL RECOVERY PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
15.00
15.00 10.56
10.00
4.02
5.00
0.00 -2.22
Control
-5.00
Experimental
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00 -21.05
-22.81
-25.00

SOMATIC/PHYSICAL RECOVERY SCORES
Table 44
Somatic/Physical Recovery scores of students in control and experimental group
Somatic Recovery Group N Mean SD

Control 15 12.6667 4.96655
Control 15 11.6000 2.79796
Control 15 9.2000 2.73078
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest somatic recovery score of control
4.20883. The mean midtest somatic recovery score of control group is 11.6000 with
posttest somatic recovery score of control group is 9.2000with SD 2.73078 and that of
experimental group is 12.9333with SD 6.31853.
58
Table 45
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Somatic Recovery scores of
Somatic Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Recovery Variation Squares Square
Score
1.040 0.317
8.623 0.007**
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test somatic recovery
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test somatic recovery scores
59
Table 46
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Somatic/Physical Recovery scores of control
and experimental group
Control 11.211 8.578
Somatic/Physical Recovery scores in the control group and experimental group
PHYSICAL RECOVERY MEANS
14.00 13.56
12.67 12.79 12.93
12.40
12.00 11.60 11.21
10.00
10.00 9.20
8.58
8.00
Control
6.00
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
60
Table 47
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Physical/Somatic
Recovery scores in the control and experimental group
Control Group
12.667 11.600 -1.067 -8.421 0.632 0.538 1.689
12.667 9.200 -3.467 -27.369 2.641 0.019** 1.312
11.600 9.200 -2.400 -20.690 2.487 0.026** 0.965
Experimental Group
10.000 12.400 2.400 24.000 2.902 0.012* 0.827
10.000 12.933 2.933 29.333 2.302 0.037* 1.274
12.400 12.933 0.533 4.301 0.432 0.672 1.234
physical/ somatic relaxation mean difference scores are -1.067, -3.467 and -2.4 with
value is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid
test physical/ somatic relaxation mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05
levels where as pre to post and mid to post physical/ somatic relaxation mean
difference scores are significant at 0.01 levels.
physical/ somatic relaxation mean difference scores are 2.4, 2.933 and 0.533 with
to mid and pre to post physical/ somatic relaxation mean difference scores in
experimental group are significant at 0.05 levels and for mid to post physical/ somatic
relaxation mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels.
61
Figure 20: The percentage gain/loss of Somatic/Physical Recovery scores in control
PHYSICAL RECOVERY PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
29.33
30.00 24.00
20.00
10.00 4.30
0.00 Control
-8.42 Experimental
-10.00
-20.00 -20.69
-27.37
-30.00

GENERAL WELL-BEING SCORES
Table 48
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest General
Well-Being scores of students in control and experimental group
General Well-being Group N Mean SD

Control 15 14.8667 4.43793
Control 15 11.0667 3.84460
Control 15 11.2000 3.52947
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest general well-being score of control
4.57946. The mean midtest general well-being score of control group is 11.0667 with
posttest general well-being score of control group is 11.2000with SD 3.52947 and that
62
Table 49
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest General Well-being scores of
General Source of Sum of Df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Well- Variation Squares Square
being
Score
4.696 0.039*
21.210 0.001**
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test general well-being scores
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test general well-being scores
63
Table 50
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean General Well-being scores of control and
experimental group
Control 10.592 10.701
Figure 21: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of General
Well-Being scores in the control group and experimental group
GENERAL WELL-BEING MEANS
18 16.499
16
16 14.87
14 13.2 13.674
12.4
12 11.07 10.59 11.20 10.70
10
8 Control
6 Experim ental
4
2
0
m idtest Posttest
64
Table 51
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of General Well-Being
Control Group
14.867 11.067 -3.800 -25.560 2.654 0.019* 1.432
14.867 11.200 -3.667 -24.664 3.990 0.001** 0.919
11.067 11.200 0.133 1.205 0.137 0.893 0.975
Experimental Group
12.400 13.200 0.800 6.452 0.904 0.381 0.885
12.400 16.000 3.600 29.032 2.909 0.011* 1.237
13.200 16.000 2.800 21.212 2.260 0.040* 1.239
general well being mean difference scores are -3.8, -3.667 and 0.133 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test general
well being mean difference score in control group is significant at 0.05 levels, pre to
post general well being mean difference score in control group is significant at 0.01
levels and for mid to post general well being mean difference score is not significant
at 0.05 levels.
general well being mean difference scores are 0.8, 3.6 and 2.8 with calculated t values
0.904,2.909 and 2.260 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is 2.145
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test being in
shape mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to post
and mid to post being in shape mean difference scores are significant at 0.05 levels.
65
Figure 22: The percentage gain/loss of General Well-Being scores in control and
experimental group
GENERAL WELL-BEING PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
29.03
30.00
21.21
20.00
10.00 6.45
1.20
0.00 control
-10.00 experim ental
-20.00 -24.66
-25.56
-30.00
PRI to MID PRI to POST MID to POST

SLEEP QUALITY SCORES
Table 52
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Sleep
Quality scores of students in control and experimental group
Sleep Quality Group N Mean SD

Control 15 15.0000 3.33809
Control 15 12.5333 2.74816
Control 15 11.1333 2.85023
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest sleep quality score of control group
is 15.0000 with SD 3.33809 and that of experimental group is 12.1333with SD
4.42181. The mean midtest sleep quality score of control group is 12.5333 with SD
2.74816 and that of experimental group is 15.5333 with SD 3.20416. The mean
66
posttest sleep quality score of control group is 11.1333 with SD 2.85023 and that of
Table 53
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Sleep Quality scores of experimental
and control group
Sleep Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Quality Variation Squares Square
score

Within Groups 203.247 27 7.528 13.528 0.001**
Adjusted
305.077 28
midtest Total

Within Groups 314.880 27 11.662 22.587 0.0001**
Adjusted
578.3 28
posttest Total
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test sleep quality scores shows
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test sleep quality scores shows
that the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control group and
67
Table 54
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Sleep Quality scores of control and
experimental group
Control 12.063 10.531
Figure 23: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Sleep Quality
SLEEP QUALITY MEANS
18.00 16.87
16.00 16.27
16.00 15.00 15.53
14.00 12.53
12.13 12.06
12.00 11.13 10.53 Control
10.00
Experimental
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
68
Table 55
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Sleep Quality scores
Control Group
15.000 12.533 -2.467 -16.445 2.982 0.010** 0.827
15.000 11.133 -3.867 -25.778 4.707 0.0001** 0.822
12.533 11.133 -1.400 -11.170 1.810 0.092 0.773
Experimental Group
12.133 15.533 3.400 28.022 3.094 0.008** 1.099
12.133 16.267 4.133 34.067 3.360 0.005** 1.230
15.533 16.267 0.733 4.721 0.613 0.550 1.197
sleep quality mean difference scores are -2.467,-3.867 and -1.4 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and pre to
post sleep quality mean difference scores in control group are significant at 0.01
levels and for mid to post sleep quality complaints mean difference score is not
significant at 0.05 levels.
sleep quality mean difference scores are 3.4, 4.133 and -0.667 with calculated t values
sleep quality mean difference scores in experimental group are significant at 0.01
levels and for mid to post sleep quality mean difference score is not significant at 0.05
levels.
69
Figure 24: The percentage gain/loss of Sleep Quality scores in control and
experimental group
SLEEP QUALITY PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
40.00 34.07
28.02
30.00
20.00
10.00 4.72
Control
0.00 Experim ental
-10.00 -11.17
-16.44
-20.00
-25.78
-30.00
]
DISTURBED BREAKS SCORES
Table 56
Disturbed Breaks scores of students in control and experimental group
Disturbed breaks Group N Mean SD

Control 15 9.1333 3.11372
Control 15 9.9333 2.71153
Control 15 11.2667 3.97252
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest disturbed breaks score of control
4.63630. The mean midtest disturbed breaks score of control group is 9.9333 with SD
disturbed breaks score of control group is 11.2667 with SD 3.97252 and that of
70
Table 57
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Disturbed Breaks scores of experimental
and control group
Disturbed Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

Breaks score Variation Squares Square Ratio Value
Between
17.568 1 17.568
Adjusted midtest Groups 1.653 0.209
Within Groups 286.884 27 10.625
Total 304.452 28
Between
204.889 1 204.889
Adjusted Groups 11.716 0.002**
Total 677.054 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test disturbed breaks
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test disturbed breaks scores
71
Table 58
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Disturbed Breaks scores of control and
experimental group
Control 10.353 11.800
Figure 25: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Disturbed
Breaks scores in the control group and experimental group
DISTURBED BREAKS MEANS
14.00
12.07 11.80
12.00 11.27
9.93 10.35
10.00 9.13 9.13 8.71
8.00 6.73
6.20 Control
6.00
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
72
Table 59
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Disturbed Breaks
Control Group
9.133 9.933 0.800 8.759 1.015 0.327 0.788
9.133 11.267 2.133 23.358 2.125 0.052 1.004
9.933 11.267 1.333 13.424 1.160 0.265 1.149
Experimental Group
12.067 9.133 -2.933 -24.310 2.184 0.046* 1.343
12.067 6.733 -5.333 -44.199 3.696 0.002** 1.443
9.133 6.733 -2.400 -26.277 1.844 0.086 1.301
disturbed breaks mean difference scores are 0.8, 2.133 and 1.333 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the disturbed
breaks mean difference scores in control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
disturbed breaks mean difference scores are -2.933, -5.333 and -2.4 with calculated t
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test
disturbed breaks mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.05
levels, pre to post disturbed breaks mean difference score in experimental group is
significant at 0.01 levels and for mid to post disturbed breaks mean difference score is
not significant at 0.05 levels.
73
Figure 26: The percentage gain/loss of Disturbed Breaks scores in control and
experimental group
DISTURBED BREAKS PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
30.00 23.36
20.00 13.42
8.76
10.00
0.00
Control
-10.00
Experim ental
-20.00 -24.31 -26.28
-30.00
-40.00 -44.20
-50.00

EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION SCORES
Table 60
Emotional Exhaustion scores of students in control and experimental group
Emotional
exhaustion Group N Mean SD
Control 15 9.2667 5.63746
Control 15 8.4667 3.50238
Control 15 10.6000 3.13506
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest emotional exhaustion score of
with SD 3.28344. The mean midtest emotional exhaustion score of control group is
74
The mean posttest emotional exhaustion score of control group is 10.6000 with SD
3.13506 and that of experimental group is 6.2000 with SD 5.33452.
Table 61
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Emotional Exhaustion scores of
Emotional Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

Exhaustion Variation Squares Square Ratio Value
score
Between
8.213 1 8.213
Total 451.145 28
Between
148.295 1 148.295
Adjusted Groups 7.536 0.011*
Total 982.466 28
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted midtest emotional exhaustion
group and experimental group do differ significantly after they have been adjusted for
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test emotional exhaustion
75
scores shows that the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control
Table 62
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Emotional Exhaustion scores of control and
experimental group
Control 8.458 10.630
Exhaustion scores in the control group and experimental group
EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION MEANS
12.00
10.60 10.63
9.93
10.00 9.27
8.47 8.46
8.00 7.40 7.41
6.20 6.17
6.00 Control
4.00 Experimental
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
76
Table 63
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Emotional
Exhaustion scores in the control and experimental group
Control Group
9.267 8.467 -0.800 -8.633 0.445 0.663 1.797
9.267 10.600 1.333 14.388 0.837 0.417 1.594
8.467 10.600 2.133 25.196 1.455 0.168 1.467
Experimental Group
9.933 7.400 -2.533 -25.503 1.855 0.085 1.366
9.933 6.200 -3.733 -37.584 2.437 0.029* 1.532
7.400 6.200 -1.200 -16.216 0.645 0.529 1.860
emotional exhaustion mean difference scores are -0.8,1.333 and 2.133 with calculated
t values 0.445, 0.837 and 1.455 respectively in control group. The table t value is
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the
emotional exhaustion means difference scores in control group are not significant at
0.05 levels.
emotional exhaustion mean difference scores are -2.533, -3.733 and -1.2 with
and mid to post test emotional exhaustion mean difference scores are not significant at
0.05 levels where as pre to post emotional exhaustion mean difference score is
significant at 0.05 levels.
77
Figure 28: The percentage gain/loss of Emotional Exhaustion scores in control and
experimental group
EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
30.00 25.20
20.00 14.39
10.00
0.00 Control
-8.63
-16.22
-20.00 -25.50
-30.00
-37.58
-40.00

INJURY SCORES
Table 64
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Injury
Injury Group N Mean SD

Control 15 9.5333 3.37780
Control 15 9.5333 2.47463
Control 15 11.4667 4.54920
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest injury score of control group is
The mean midtest injury score of control group is 9.5333 with SD 2.47463 and that of
experimental group is 8.6000 with SD 3.41844. The mean posttest injury score of
with SD 4.51136.
78
Table 65
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Injury scores of experimental and
control group
Injury Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value


Within Groups 238.329 27 8.827 1.544 0.225
Adjusted
251.96 28
midtest Total

Within Groups 357.431 27 13.238 21.924 0.0001**
Adjusted
647.661 28
posttest Total
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test injury scores shows
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test injury scores shows that
79
Table 66
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Injury scores of control and experimental group
Control 9.806 12.677
Figure 29: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Injury scores
in the control group and experimental group
INJURY MEANS
14.00 13.33
12.68
12.00 11.47
9.53 9.53 9.81
10.00
8.60 8.33
8.00 7.07
5.86 Control
6.00
Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
80
Table 67
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Injury scores in the
Control Group
9.533 9.533 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.995
9.533 11.467 1.933 20.280 2.394 0.031* 0.808
9.533 11.467 1.933 20.280 1.948 0.072 0.993
Experimental Group
13.333 8.600 -4.733 -35.500 3.335 0.005** 1.419
13.333 7.067 -6.267 -47.000 5.324 0.0001** 1.177
8.600 7.067 -1.533 -17.829 1.373 0.191 1.116
injury mean difference scores are 0, 1.933 and 1.933 with calculated t values 0, 2.394
and 1.948 respectively in control group. The table t value is 2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05
level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and mid to post test injury
mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to post injury
mean difference score is significant at 0.05 levels.
injury mean difference scores are -4.733, -6.267 and 1.533 with calculated t values
3.335, 5.324 and 1.373 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is 2.145
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid and pre to
post injury mean difference scores in experimental group are significant at 0.01 levels
and for mid to post injury mean difference score is not significant at 0.05 levels.
81
Figure 30: The percentage gain/loss of Injury scores in control and experimental
group
INJURY PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
30.00
20.28 20.28
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
-10.00 Control
-20.00
-30.00 -35.50
-40.00
-47.00
-50.00

BEING IN SHAPE SCORES
Table 68
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Being in
Shape scores of students in control and experimental group
Being in Shape Group N Mean SD

Control 15 14.0000 4.98569
Control 15 10.8000 4.50714
Control 15 10.0000 4.34248
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest being in shape score of control
4.99238. The mean midtest being in shape score of control group is 10.8000 with SD
posttest being in shape score of control group is 10.0000 with SD 4.34248 and that of
82
Table 69
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Being in Shape scores of experimental
and control group
Being in Source of Sum of df Mean F Ratio P-Value

Shape Variation Squares Square
Score
1.812 0.189
Within Groups 512.617 27 18.986
Adjusted
547.023 28
Total
midtest
20.207 0.0001**
Within Groups 530.348 27 19.643
Adjusted
927.258 28
Total
posttest
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test being in shape scores
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test being in shape scores
83
Table 70
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Being in Shape scores of control and
experimental group
Control 10.210 8.805
Figure 31: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Being in
Shape scores in the control group and experimental group
BEING IN SHAPE MEANS
18.00 16.66
16.00 15.47
14.00
14.00 12.52
11.93
12.00 10.80
10.07 10.21 10.00
10.00 8.81
8.00 Control
6.00 Experimental
4.00
2.00
0.00
midtest Posttest
84
Table 71
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Being in Shape
Control Group
14.000 10.800 -3.200 -22.857 1.841 0.087 1.738
14.000 10.000 -4.000 -28.571 3.172 0.007** 1.261
10.800 10.000 -0.800 -7.407 0.478 0.640 1.674
Experimental Group
10.067 11.933 1.867 18.542 1.825 0.089 1.023
10.067 15.467 5.400 53.642 4.491 0.001** 1.202
11.933 15.467 3.533 29.610 3.378 0.005** 1.046
being in shape mean difference scores are -3.2, -4 and -0.8 with calculated t values
test being in shape mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as
pre to post being in shape mean difference score is significant at 0.01 levels.
being in shape mean difference scores are 1.867, 5.4 and 3.533 with calculated t
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test
being in shape mean difference scores are not significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to
post and mid to post being in shape mean difference scores are significant at 0.01
levels.
85
Figure 32: The percentage gain/loss of Being in Shape scores in control and
experimental group
BEING IN SHAPE PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
60.00 53.64
40.00 29.61
18.54
20.00
Control
0.00 Experimental
-7.41
-20.00 -22.86
-28.57
-40.00

PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT SCORES
Table 72
Personal Accomplishment scores of students in control and experimental group
Personal
accomplishment Group N Mean SD
Control 15 12.6667 2.74296
Control 15 11.4000 3.68006
Control 15 9.5333 2.99682
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest personal accomplishment score of
with SD 3.99046. The mean midtest personal accomplishment score of control group
3.34806. The mean posttest personal accomplishment score of control group is 9.5333
with SD 2.99682 and that of experimental group is 14.3333 with SD 5.72796.
86
Table 73
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Personal Accomplishment scores of
Personal Source of Sum of df Mean F P-Value

Accomplishment Variation Squares Square Ratio
score
Between
8.223 1 8.223
Adjusted midtest Groups
0.662 0.423
Within
335.542 27 12.427
Groups
Total 434.756 28
Between
351.836 1 351.836
Adjusted posttest Groups
26.574 0.0001**
Within
357.474 27 13.240
Groups
Total 709.31 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test personal
accomplishment scores shows that the two mid mean scores, viz. the mid mean score
in the control group and experimental group do not differ significantly after they have
been adjusted for differences in pretest scores.
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test personal accomplishment
scores shows that the two post mean scores, viz. the post mean score in the control
87
Table 74
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Personal Accomplishment scores of control and
experimental group
Control 11.071 8.035
Figure 33: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Personal
Accomplishment scores in the control group and experimental group
PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT MEANS
15.83
16.00
14.33
14.00 12.67
11.93 12.26
12.00 11.40 11.07
10.00 9.07 9.53
8.04
8.00 Control
6.00
Experim ental
4.00
2.00
0.00
m idtest Posttest
88
Table 75
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Personal
Accomplishment scores in the control and experimental group
Control Group
12.667 11.400 -1.267 -10.000 0.886 0.390 1.429
12.667 9.533 -3.133 -24.737 3.091 0.008** 1.014
11.400 9.533 -1.867 -16.375 1.584 0.136 1.179
Experimental Group
9.067 11.933 2.867 31.617 3.705 0.002** 0.774
9.067 14.333 5.267 58.087 6.212 0.0001** 0.848
11.933 14.333 2.400 20.112 2.610 0.021* 0.920
personal accomplishment mean difference scores are -1.267, -3.133 and -1.867 with
and mid to post test personal accomplishment mean difference scores are not
significant at 0.05 levels where as pre to post personal accomplishment mean
difference score is significant at 0.01 levels.
personal accomplishment mean difference scores are 2.867, 5.267 and 2.4 with
to mid and pre to post personal accomplishment mean difference scores in
experimental group are significant at 0.01 levels and for mid to post personal
accomplishment mean difference score is significant at 0.05 levels.
89
Figure 34: The percentage gain/loss of Personal Accomplishment scores in control
PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
58.09
60.00
40.00 31.62
20.11
20.00
Control
0.00 Experim ental
-10.00
-16.37
-20.00 -24.74
-40.00

SELF-EFFICACY SCORES
Table 76
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Self-
Efficacy scores of students in control and experimental group
Self-Efficacy Group N Mean SD

Control 15 14.0000 4.17475
Control 15 10.4000 3.41844
Control 15 10.2667 3.89994
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest self-efficacy score of control group
3.41983. The mean midtest self-efficiency score of control group is 10.4000 with SD
posttest self- efficacy score of control group is 10.2667 with SD 3.89994 and that of
90
Table 77
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest general Self-Efficacy of experimental
and control group
Self-Efficacy Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

Score Variation Squares Square Ratio Value
Between
20.416 1 20.416
Total 458.572 28
Between
211.565 1 211.565
Adjusted Groups 8.496 0.007**
Total 883.912 28
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted mid test is1.258 which is not significant
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test self- efficacy scores
covariate). This significant F ratio for the adjusted post test self- efficacy scores
91
Table 78
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Self-Efficacy scores of control and experimental
group
Control 9.812 8.685
Figure 35: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Self-Efficacy
SELF-EFFICACY MEANS
16 15.049
14 13.4667
14
12 11.2 11.788
10.4 9.812 10.2667
10 9.1333 8.685
8 Control
6
Experim ental
4
2
0
m idtest Posttest
92
Table 79
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Self-Efficacy scores
Control Group
14.000 10.400 -3.600 -25.714 2.348 0.034* 1.533
14.000 10.267 -3.733 -26.666 2.965 0.010** 1.259
10.400 10.267 -0.133 -1.282 0.083 0.935 1.597
Experimental Group
9.133 11.200 2.067 22.628 2.239 0.042* 0.923
9.133 13.467 4.333 47.446 3.183 0.007** 1.362
11.200 13.467 2.267 20.238 1.906 0.077 1.189
self efficacy mean difference scores are -3.6, -3.733 and -0.133 with calculated t
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test self
efficacy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.05 levels, pre
to post self efficacy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.01
levels and for mid to post self efficacy mean difference score is not significant at 0.05
levels.
self efficacy mean difference scores are 2.067, 4.333 and 2.267 with calculated t
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus pre to mid test self
efficacy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.05 levels, pre
to post self efficacy mean difference score in experimental group is significant at 0.01
levels and for mid to post self efficacy mean difference score is not significant at 0.05
levels.
93
Figure 36: The percentage gain/loss of Self-Efficacy scores in control and
experimental group
SELF-EFFICACY
47.44615856
50
40
30 22.62818477 20.23839286
20
10 Control
0 -1.281730769 Experim ental
-10
-20 -25.71428571 -26.66642857
-30

SELF-REGULATION SCORES
Table 80
Main characteristics of the data distribution of pretest, midtest and posttest Self-
Regulation scores of students in control and experimental group
Self-regulation Group N Mean SD

Control 15 11.4667 3.29213
Control 15 10.0000 3.48466
Control 15 10.2667 2.49189
From table, it is seen that the mean pretest self-regulation score of control
3.82099. The mean midtest self-regulation score of control group is 10 with SD
posttest self-regulation score of control group is 10.2667 with SD 2.49189 and that of
94
Table 81
ANCOVA for adjusted midtest and posttest Self-regulation scores of experimental
and control group
Self-regulation Source of Sum of df Mean F P-

Between
2.004 1 2.004
Groups
Within Groups 382.902 27 14.182
midtest
Total 384.906 28
Between
38.197 1 38.197
Groups
Within Groups 352.054 27 13.039
posttest
Total 390.251 28
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted mid test self-regulation scores
The calculated F ratio in the adjusted post test is 2.929 which is not significant
covariate). This non significant F ratio for the adjusted post test self-regulation scores
95
Table 82
Adjusted midtest and posttest mean Self-regulation scores of control and
experimental group
Control 9.975 10.171
Figure 37: Pre, mid, adjusted mid, post and adjusted post test mean of Self
Regulation scores in the control group and experimental group
SELF REGULATION MEANS
14.00
12.33 12.43
12.00 11.47
11.20
10.47
10.00 10.49
9.98 10.27 10.17
10.00
8.00
6.00 Control
4.00 Experim ental
2.00
0.00
m idtest Posttest
96
Table 83
Pre to mid, pre to post and mid to post test mean difference of Relf-Regulation
Control Group
11.467 10.000 10.267 -1.467 -12.791 1.016 0.327 1.444
11.467 10.267 -1.200 -10.465 1.511 0.153 0.794
10.000 10.267 0.267 2.667 0.216 0.832 1.232
Experimental Group
11.200 10.467 12.333 -0.733 -6.547 0.794 0.440 0.923
11.200 12.333 1.133 10.119 1.043 0.314 1.086
10.467 12.333 1.867 17.834 2.052 0.059 0.910
self regulation mean difference scores are -1.467, -1.2 and 0.267 with calculated t
at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the self regulation
means difference scores in control group are not significant at 0.05 levels.
self regulation mean difference scores are -0.733, 1.133 and 1.867 with calculated t
values 0.794,1.043 and 2.052 respectively in experimental group. The table t value is
2.145 at (P<0.05) 0.05 level and 2.977 at (P<0.01) 0.01 level. Thus any of the self
regulation means difference scores in experimental group are not significant at 0.05
levels.
97
Figure 38: The percentage gain/loss of Self-Regulation scores in control and
experimental group
SELF-REGULATION PERCENTAGE GAIN/LOSS
20.00 17.83
15.00 10.12
10.00
5.00 2.67
Control
0.00 Experim ental
-5.00 -6.55
-10.00 -10.47
-12.79
-15.00
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Significant changes were seen in most of the variables of stress-recovery

following 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme. Findings were
as follows:-
Significant decrease was seen in general stress, emotional stress and emotional
exhaustion following 16 weeks of low impact water exercises training programme. It
may probably due to the fact that the combined effects of hydrostatic pressure and the
turbulence of the water against the body provided a massaging effect, potentially
decreasing both physical and mental tension and promoting relaxation of the muscles
and mind, leaving the body feeling less stressed. Flotation and relaxatation exercises
with the help of buoyancy belt, floaters and floating jacket would have added in relief
stress.
Significant reduction in social stress was seen following 16 weeks of low-

impact water exercises training programme. It may be due to low-impact water
exercises training programme which enhanced communication and potentially
promoted the development of friendships between wider ranges of participants. As the
programme included partner or group work which involved in different shapes and
patterns across the pool. The interaction created from using these patterns required
98
those participants to communicate more actively with each other; this fact would have
resulted in decreased social stress.
Significant reduction was seen in fatigue following 16 weeks of low-impact

water exercises training programme. Low-impact water exercises promotes better
circulation of blood through the kidneys, promotes urination and decreasing the
retention of excess fluid and waste products, improves the circulation of blood
through the heart, which contributes to a lower heart rate during exercise, and
effective delivery of oxygen to the muscles. It also improves in the circulation of
venous blood, a decrease stress on the valves and reduces risk of blood pooling, and
finally shows improvement in the circulation of blood through the muscles and assists
with the removal of lactic acid to the liver thus leading to reduced fatigue. The active
low-impact water exercises training programme which incorporated various stretching
exercises would have caused better removal of lactic acid from the body resulting
decrease in fatigue.
Somatic/physical complaints and injury declined significantly following 16

weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme, where as somatic/physical
recovery and being in shape were promoted significantly following 16 weeks of low-
impact water exercises training programme. The probable cause could be that during
water exercises the body is in a near zero gravity environment, thus there is virtually
no impact or jarring effect on any of the body’s joints, muscles, ligaments, tendons or
bones rather such activity provides optimal range of motion while minimizing joint
stress and soft tissue injury.
Energy was found to be improved significantly after 16 weeks of low-impact

water exercises training programme. The fact that hydrostatic pressure causes better
circulation of blood through out body and better oxygen transport for helping food
sources to break down and produce energy would have caused such increase in energy
level.
Significant reduction in disturbed breaks and improvement in sleep quality due

to 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme was found. It would
have happened as during water immersion the body temperature use to be slightly less
then the normal temperature which causes relaxation, leading to stress free deep sleep.
99
Relaxing exercises incorporated in the low-impact water exercises training
programme would have added to such deep and break less sleep.
Significant improvement in personal accomplishment and self efficacy was

seen following 8 weeks and 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises training
programme and success indeed was also seen to be changed following 16 weeks of
such programme. The facts which may would have add to such change are flexibility
increased due to the better range of motion during low impact water exercises ,also
increased circulation of blood through the hearts contributed to a lower heart rate
during exercises and effective delivery of oxygen to the working muscles. Another
fact was athletes who were relaxed have more control of their movement, thus they
were able to gain and maintain optimal performance. Initially improved energy levels
and well being would have enable the athlete to trained to the optimal and perform
better.
Significant reduction in conflict/pressure due to 8 weeks and 16 weeks of low-

impact water exercises training programme was seen. Improvement in general well-
being following 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme was
noted. It may be due to the fact that the nature of low-impact water exercises training
programme was such that there was no competitive factors involved rather more fun
environment was present, which in turn enabled participants to relax and enjoy the
session much more reducing mental as well as physical strains and pressure. While
exercising in the water the effects created by the gravitational pull on skeletal,
muscular, cardio-vascular, respiratory and other body systems were greatly reduced
promoting general well-being. Again it may be due to better emotional state and
reduced stress due to low-impact water exercises training programme.
DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESIS
It was hypothesised that there would be improvement in stress recovery

following 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises.
As improvement was seen in most of the variables of stress recovery following

16 weeks of low-impact water exercises the research hypothesis was thus accepted.
100
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In modern context the desire to provide peek physical and psychological

performance during competition necessitate preparation involving intense and
stressful training. Recovery during this preparatory training is an important factor in
athlete’s life as optimal recovery prevents underperformance as well as promotes
performance.
Water exercises promote recovery due to various added advantages of

performing exercises in water. Such exercise provides optimal range of motion while
minimising joint stress and reduced load on skeletal structures due to buoyancy effect.
Further such exercises provide a training stimulus for the oxygen transport system and
circulatory system due to hydrostatic pressure.
The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of 16 weeks of low
impact water exercises on stress recovery.
The subjects of the study were 30 male football players between the age 18
years to 23 years from SAI, LNCPE, Trivandrum. The subjects were randomly
assigned to two groups, an experimental group (N=15) and control group (N=15). In
addition to regular football practice session the experimental group participated in the
low impact water exercise training programme thrice a week for a period of 16 weeks.
The control group only participated in regular football practice session and did not
involve in any water activities.
The variables selected for the study was stress recovery. This stress recovery
had 19 sub variables and was general stress, emotional stress, social stress,
conflict/pressure, fatigue, lack of energy, physical/somatic complaints, success, social
101
recovery, physical/somatic recovery, general well-being, sleep quality, disturbed
breaks, emotional exhaustion, injury, being in shape, personal accomplishment, self-
efficacy and self-regulation.
Duration of low-impact water exercise training programme was 16 weeks.

Tool used to asses stress recovery was RESTQ-76 sport questionnaire (Michael
Kellmenn, 2002). Data was collected on stress recovery before starting of the
experimental training session, in between the experimental training session and at the
end of the experimental training session.
Descriptive statistics, ANCOVA and Bonferroni post hoc test were employed
for each of the selected variables of RESTQ-76 questioner with SPSS-16 software
package for windows. Level of significance chosen were P<0.05 and P<0.01.
Conclusions
With in the limitation of the present study on the basis of scores of the football
players in the test sub variables and the statistical results, the conclusion arrived at:
8 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme resulted decrease

in general stress of football players.

in emotional stress of football players.
Social stress decreased after 8 weeks of low-impact water exercises training

programme in football players.

in conflict/pressure of football players.

in fatigue of football players.
102
Lack of energy decreased after 8 weeks of low-impact water exercises training
programme in football players.
Physical/somatic complaints decreased after 8 weeks of low-impact water

exercises training programme.
16 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme resulted increase

in success of football players.
Social recovery did not show significant change due to 16 weeks of low-
impact water exercises training programme in football players.
Physical/somatic recovery increased after 8 weeks of low-impact water

exercises training programme in football players.

in emotional stress of football players.
General well-being increased after 16 weeks of low-impact water exercises

training programme in football players.
8 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme resulted improved

in sleep quality of football players.

in disturbed breaks of football players.
Emotional exhaustion decreased after 8 weeks of low-impact water exercises

training programme in football players.
8 weeks of low-impact water exercises training programme resulted in

decrease in injury of football players.

increase in being in shape of football players.
103
Personal accomplishment increased after 16 weeks of low-impact water
exercises training programme in football players.

increase in self-efficacy of football players.
Self-regulation did not show significant change due to 16 weeks of low-impact

water exercises training programme in football players.
Recommendations
In the light of conclusion drawn, the following recommendations are made;
1. Similar studies can be conducted on large groups of various games and

sports.
2. On a higher level, study may be conducted on the national and
international level athletes belonging to various games and sports.
3. Similar studies can be conducted on subjects of various discipline like IT
professionals, various government employees etc.
4. Similar studies additionally with measurement of muscle soreness and
lactic acid accumulation may be undertaken.
5. Similar studies for longer duration may be undertaken.
6. Similar studies separately on the female footballers can be conducted.
7. Short duration studies should be avoided, as short duration experimental
training programme may not have effect.
104
APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX – I
R E S T Q – 76 Sport
Single Code: ________________________ Group Code: _______________________
Name: _________________________________________________________________
Date: _______________ Time: ____________ Age: __________ Gender: ___________
Sport/Event(s): __________________________________________________________
This questioner consists of a series of statements. These statements possibly describe your
mental, emotional, or physical well-being or your activities during the past few days and
nights.
Please select the answer that most accurately reflects your thoughts and activities. Indicate
how often each statement was right in your case in the past days.
The statements related to performance should refer to performance during competition as

well as during practice.
For each statements there is seven possible answers.
Please make your selection by marking the number corresponding to the appropriate
answer.
Example:
In the past (3) days/nights
… I read a newspaper
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
never seldom sometimes often more often very often always
In this example, the number 5 is marked. This means that you read a newspaper very often
in the past three days
Please do not leave any statements blank.
If you are unsure which answer to choose, select the one that most closely applies to you.
Please turn the page and respond to the statements in order without interruption.
106
1) … I watched TV
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
2) … I did not get enough sleep

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3) … I finished important task

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
4) … I was unable to concentrate well

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5) … everything bothered me
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
6) … I laughed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7) … I felt physically bad

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
8) … I was in a bad mood

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
9) … I felt physically relaxed

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10) … I was in good spirits

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
11) … I had difficulty in concentrating

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
107
12) … I worried about unresolved problems

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
13) … I felt at ease

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
14) … I had a good time with friend

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
15) … I had a headache

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
16) … I was tired from work

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
17) … I was successful in what I did

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
18) … I couldn’t switched my mind off

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
19) … I feel asleep satisfied and relaxed

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
20) … I felt uncomfortable

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
21) … I was annoyed by others

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
22) … I felt down

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
108
23) … I visited some close friends

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
24) … I felt depressed

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
25) … I was dead tired after work

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
26) … other peoples got on my nerves

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
27) … I had a satisfying sleep

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
28) … I felt anxious or inhibited

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
29) … I felt physically fit

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30) … I was fed up with every thing

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
31) … I was lethargic

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
32) … I felt I had performed well in front of others

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
33) … I had fun

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
109
34) … I was in a good mood

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
35) … I was overtired

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
36) … I slept restlessly

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
37) … I was annoyed

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
38) … I felt as if I could get every thing done

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
39) … I was upset

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
40) … I put off making decisions

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
41) …I made important decisions

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
42) … I felt physically exhausted

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
43) … I felt happy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
44) … I felt under pressure

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
110
45) … everything was too much for me

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
46) … my sleep was interrupted easily

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
47) … I felt content

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
48) … I was angry with someone

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
49) … I had some good ideas

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
50) … part of my body were aching

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
51) … I could not get rest during the breaks

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
52) … I was convinced I could achieve my set goals during performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
53) … I recovered well physically

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
54) … I felt burned out by my sport

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
55) … I accomplished many worthwhile things in my sport

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
111
56) … I prepared myself mentally for performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
57) … my muscle felt stiff or tense during performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
58) … I had the impression there were too few breaks

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
59) … I was convinced I could achieve my performance at any time

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
60) … I dealt very effectively with my teammates’ problems

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
61) … I was in good condition physically

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
62) … I pushed myself during performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
63) … I felt emotionally drained from performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
64) … I had muscle pain after performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
65) … I was convinced that I performed well

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
66) … too much was demanded of me during the breaks

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
112
67) … I psyched myself up before performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
68) … I felt that I wanted to quit my sport

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
69) … I felt very energetic

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
70) … I easily understood how my teammates felt about things

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
71) … I was convinced that I had trained well

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
72) … the breaks were not at the right times

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
73) … I felt vulnerable to injuries

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
74) … I set definite goals for my performance

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
75) … my body felt strong

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
76) … I felt frustrated by my sport

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
77) … I dealt with emotional problems in my sport very calmly

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
113
APPENDIX – II
RAW SCORES
GENERAL EMOTIONAL SOCIAL CONFLICTS/

FATIGUE
STRESS STRESS STRESS PRESSURE
group
post
post
post
post
post
mid
mid
mid
mid
mid
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
control 1 6 5 7 6 6 6 7 4 6 11 9 10 7 7 8
control 2 7 3 7 14 4 8 9 2 6 11 3 4 12 7 4
control 3 8 10 12 7 13 19 5 16 8 12 10 15 7 11 8
control 4 7 9 12 14 11 6 9 11 12 10 9 8 12 9 12
control 5 6 4 10 9 4 14 4 1 8 8 4 13 4 6 12
control 6 12 7 10 9 5 7 11 11 10 9 9 5 3 6 7
control 7 11 12 12 12 10 11 10 10 16 10 10 8 2 11 4
control 8 15 8 17 15 12 9 8 10 17 16 9 14 16 9 17
control 9 5 15 7 13 9 4 4 8 7 8 11 5 9 12 10
control 10 4 11 9 11 10 8 4 8 10 10 10 10 9 8 8
control 11 10 8 7 10 12 11 5 9 11 11 7 10 4 10 7
control 12 8 5 7 11 9 8 13 6 7 9 5 9 13 11 13
control 13 8 9 10 8 10 10 8 9 10 9 9 9 9 13 12
control 14 7 12 15 8 11 12 9 10 14 11 8 14 7 9 18
control 15 21 21 20 17 16 15 17 14 16 18 17 19 18 21 22
exp 1 10 9 9 14 11 13 20 11 14 14 9 14 8 9 13
exp 2 9 3 5 9 3 7 11 8 6 10 4 6 16 2 8
exp 3 18 9 6 12 9 7 15 7 9 16 7 9 20 8 11
exp 4 8 7 9 9 7 10 8 8 10 9 8 11 8 5 9
exp 5 10 11 0 10 8 7 15 5 2 14 10 3 14 7 4
exp 6 20 8 10 15 10 7 14 8 10 17 7 7 22 16 7
exp 7 11 5 11 8 7 8 17 5 8 9 7 10 17 6 5
exp 8 10 8 1 12 10 7 15 8 2 14 10 7 11 9 6
exp 9 13 7 10 17 11 8 10 13 8 13 11 12 17 17 9
exp 10 10 7 2 9 8 4 9 4 4 8 9 7 11 3 3
exp 11 11 8 8 7 8 8 6 8 8 11 9 9 7 8 8
exp 12 10 9 2 9 11 2 5 8 1 14 10 4 9 10 6
exp 13 20 3 5 15 7 7 15 4 7 17 7 10 22 9 6
exp 14 16 8 3 13 9 8 16 10 4 15 11 7 19 8 4
exp 15 9 5 4 8 4 2 6 5 2 7 5 2 8 5 3
Control : Control Group

Exp: Experimental Group
SOMATIC SOMATIC/
LACK OF SOCIAL
/PHYSICAL SUCCESS PHYSICAL
ENERGY RELAXATION
COMPLAINTS RELAXATION
group post
post
post
post
post
mid
mid
mid
mid
mid
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
control 1 6 6 7 4 3 5 11 12 14 20 15 18 15 11 12
control 2 11 5 8 7 4 3 11 15 5 15 19 15 10 15 9
control 3 7 13 12 5 13 10 15 12 12 13 8 16 19 7 8
control 4 11 13 11 7 3 10 11 17 11 14 19 9 10 16 8
control 5 4 6 13 3 3 8 19 6 11 18 7 10 20 7 11
control 6 11 7 11 13 7 8 17 14 10 18 11 9 8 12 10
control 7 10 11 13 15 12 12 17 11 10 15 11 10 7 15 13
control 8 12 11 14 19 8 17 6 9 7 12 8 7 3 11 6
control 9 5 12 1 6 6 4 14 12 13 16 12 9 17 15 9
control 10 8 12 8 6 8 7 18 7 7 15 16 17 17 13 10
control 11 14 10 11 11 11 8 8 12 10 12 8 11 11 10 8
control 12 9 8 10 7 9 11 21 14 13 22 18 18 17 12 8
control 13 9 10 10 6 9 8 13 11 13 13 10 12 14 10 15
control 14 12 11 13 3 11 12 14 16 6 14 11 8 14 10 6
control 15 18 17 18 17 15 21 10 10 7 11 7 7 8 10 5
exp 1 14 13 9 8 3 12 9 17 10 11 15 8 10 16 10
exp 2 8 6 5 10 4 5 5 5 6 11 7 6 5 7 6
exp 3 16 7 11 18 9 9 8 7 10 7 8 9 7 4 7
exp 4 11 5 9 8 6 12 10 9 7 13 13 14 8 5 9
exp 5 14 8 4 18 7 0 11 12 21 11 12 22 13 15 22
exp 6 16 12 12 21 9 9 7 13 11 7 18 12 5 9 9
exp 7 7 11 11 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 11 9 12 13 9
exp 8 11 8 3 18 9 3 11 15 22 11 12 21 12 15 22
exp 9 15 14 13 19 7 10 10 13 11 16 16 12 6 14 8
exp 10 11 7 2 9 2 3 15 12 10 15 19 9 17 21 14
exp 11 7 8 8 7 8 8 11 10 9 16 13 14 11 11 11
exp 12 5 12 6 4 8 4 16 12 20 17 12 19 14 14 13
exp 13 20 4 6 23 7 6 7 9 7 8 10 11 4 6 8
exp 14 15 7 0 18 9 0 10 14 21 9 14 19 9 16 23
exp 15 6 3 2 7 4 1 16 20 22 16 19 22 17 20 23

115
GENERAL SLEEP DISTURBED EMOTIONAL
INJURY
WELL-BEING QUALITY BREAKS EXHAUSTION
group
post
post
post
post
post
mid
mid
mid
mid
mid
pre
pre
pre
pre
pre
control 1 19 10 13 18 14 16 6 9 5 4 13 6 7 10 8
control 2 14 18 18 14 14 9 12 8 7 14 3 18 6 7 5
control 3 17 5 11 18 11 11 8 8 13 6 3 15 9 5 5
control 4 14 16 9 14 10 10 10 7 12 14 2 9 6 9 13
control 5 21 6 11 21 15 11 4 4 10 1 6 8 7 7 9
control 6 15 16 13 13 12 12 8 14 5 19 9 8 9 12 8
control 7 13 10 9 14 16 10 7 8 12 19 11 8 11 14 16
control 8 6 7 6 11 11 9 14 11 18 8 10 12 19 8 18
control 9 20 12 15 18 11 15 7 10 12 4 12 11 7 10 9
control 10 16 13 13 19 14 9 7 9 10 6 11 12 9 11 11
control 11 11 10 9 16 14 13 10 11 10 8 11 8 9 11 11
control 12 20 14 15 15 12 11 14 12 10 9 9 11 11 7 11
control 13 14 8 13 14 15 16 8 13 11 3 7 9 9 9 12
control 14 16 12 7 11 14 9 8 12 16 10 11 11 10 10 15
control 15 7 9 6 9 5 6 14 13 18 14 9 13 14 13 21
exp 1 16 13 16 10 10 13 9 7 13 10 6 14 14 9 12
exp 2 7 7 11 12 14 13 9 6 4 7 6 5 8 5 4
exp 3 9 12 13 7 14 14 16 6 10 9 7 11 19 9 8
exp 4 12 7 14 13 13 13 9 7 7 8 7 8 9 9 9
exp 5 11 14 23 11 15 24 13 10 2 7 11 0 14 12 3
exp 6 6 11 12 6 17 10 18 12 8 13 7 11 21 8 13
exp 7 13 14 16 18 15 14 10 11 10 14 11 10 16 11 11
exp 8 11 11 23 14 14 23 13 9 4 7 8 1 14 12 6
exp 9 15 13 15 11 20 12 16 19 15 8 11 14 16 14 14
exp 10 20 22 14 18 21 20 10 13 4 14 19 1 9 2 1
exp 11 14 15 13 16 15 16 9 10 9 6 6 7 8 9 8
exp 12 18 13 19 14 14 16 7 11 2 11 5 0 6 12 2
exp 13 6 9 14 6 14 14 19 6 12 15 0 10 21 7 11
exp 14 9 16 15 7 15 19 19 8 0 14 4 0 18 7 2
exp 15 19 21 22 19 22 23 4 2 1 6 3 1 7 3 2

116
PERSONAL
BEING IN SHAPE ACCOMPLISHMENT SELF-EFFICAY SELF-REGULATION
group pre mid post pre mid post pre mid post pre mid post
control 1 21 3 17 10 12 13 16 5 17 12 4 15
control 2 11 20 5 13 17 6 6 15 4 9 14 7
control 3 17 20 13 13 18 15 14 18 10 12 14 14
control 4 11 13 16 13 10 10 6 8 10 9 9 9
control 5 20 9 10 19 3 11 20 8 11 13 3 11
control 6 10 8 9 12 15 9 13 12 9 9 8 6
control 7 10 10 14 12 11 15 13 10 18 7 11 11
control 8 3 8 3 9 9 6 15 11 4 19 6 12
control 9 17 11 9 12 10 8 16 11 10 8 14 11
control 10 18 12 11 13 10 11 18 11 12 14 12 11
control 11 10 9 9 9 12 9 10 8 10 11 10 9
control 12 18 10 15 18 8 8 18 5 11 17 11 12
control 13 15 12 9 12 13 9 15 12 13 10 11 8
control 14 18 11 5 12 13 6 18 12 7 12 10 10
control 15 11 6 5 13 10 7 12 10 8 10 13 8
exp 1 16 13 18 10 10 17 10 8 11 15 9 11
exp 2 4 7 6 4 6 5 4 4 4 7 7 5
exp 3 6 9 12 8 9 10 7 10 9 9 6 11
exp 4 9 4 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 8 6 9
exp 5 11 14 24 14 12 21 9 14 24 14 9 16
exp 6 5 10 10 5 13 10 8 8 11 7 9 7
exp 7 7 9 11 6 11 12 6 10 10 7 11 10
exp 8 11 12 22 14 13 18 9 16 20 14 12 14
exp 9 4 9 12 7 11 15 9 11 12 17 11 9
exp 10 15 20 17 7 12 11 8 13 4 9 6 7
exp 11 17 14 15 7 10 13 14 13 14 12 14 17
exp 12 16 12 23 16 17 22 14 11 21 15 13 23
exp 13 5 9 11 6 11 10 7 5 11 7 9 7
exp 14 8 17 21 8 16 21 8 17 21 10 14 16
exp 15 17 20 23 16 19 23 17 21 23 17 21 23

117
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Baechle, Thomas, and Roger W. Earle, Essential of Strength Training and
Conditioning 2nd edition, National Strength and Conditioning Association
(U.S), Human Kinetics Publishers
Bompa, Tudor O, (1994), Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training 4th

edition, United States of America, Human Kinetics Publishers
Gaines, MaryBetch Pappas, (1993), Fantastic Water Workouts, United States of

America, Human Kinetics Publishers
Hindle, Tim, (1998), Reducing Stress, London, U.K, Dorling Kindersley Limited
Kellmann, Michael, (1999), Overload, Performance Incompetence, and Regeneration

in Sport, edited by Lehmann etal, New York, 101, Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers
Kellmann, Michael, (2002), Enhancing Recovery : Preventing Underperformance in

Athletes, United States of America, Human Kinetics Publishers
Kellmann, Michael, and K. Wolfgang Kallus, (2001), Recovery-Stress Questionnaire

for athletes, United States of America, Human Kinetics Publishers
Lawrence, Debbie, (1998), The Complete Guide to Exercise in Water, 35 Bedford

Row, London, U.K, A & C Black Publisher
Verma J.P., A Text Book on Sports Statistics (Venus Publication), 2000
Verma J P, “Statistical Methods for Sports and Physical Education” (Tata McGraw
Hill Education Private Ltd), 2011
Williams, Craig, and Chris Wragg, (2006), Data Analysis and Research for Sport and
Exercise Science, British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data, New
York, Routledge
118
Journals
Halson Shona, L.etal. Physiological responses to cold water immersion following
cycling in the heat, International journal of sports physiology and
performance 2008; 3(3):331-46.
Ingram J, Dawson B, Goodman C, Wallman K, Beilby J. Effect of water immersion
methods on post-exercise recovery from simulated team sport exercise, J Sci
Med Sport. 2009 May;12(3):417-21. Epub 2008 Jun 11.
Reilly, T. etal. The use of recovery methods post-exercise, Journal of Sports Science,
June 2005;23(6):619-627.
Suzuki, M. etal. Effect of incorporating low intensity exercise into the recovery period
after a rugby match, British Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;38:436-440.
Timothy, B. etal. Load, stress, and recovery in adolescent rugby union players during
a competitive season, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2009 August; 27(10):1087-
1094.
Vaile J, Halson S, Gill N, Dawson B. Effect of hydrotherapy on the signs and
symptoms of delayed onset muscle soreness, Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008
Mar;102(4):447-55. Epub 2007 Nov 3.
Wilcock, Ian. The effect of water immersion, active recovery and passive recovery on
repeated bouts of explosive exercise and blood plasma fraction, AUT
University Publisher, 1-Jan-2005.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research / National Strength & Conditioning
Association, Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 1402-12, Date Sep 2008,
Journal of sports sciences 2009; 27(6):565-73.
Journal of Sports Sciences, Volume 27, Issue 6 April 2009, pages 565 - 573
Websites
www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/19211945
www.bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract
www.informaworld.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17978833
www.globussht.com
www.informaworld.com/smpp/7001995-78653935
119
View publication stats

Hydro Activity For Stress Recovery in Sports: October 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hydro Activity For Stress Recovery in Sports: October 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydro Activity For Stress Recovery in Sports: October 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Hydro Activity for Stress Recovery in Sports

Book · October 2013

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 $  %    &   

    

// $$$   

0  

*   &

< "-. %= - +  %7>:>

/- ?7>:@4& )*5/ +)

Mr. SUPRIYO MONDAL

EMAIL: CAREER OBJECTIVE

West Bengal, 731129 ACADEMIC PROFILE

PERSONAL DATA • YƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚh'Ed;:ƵŶĞ͕ϮϬϭϮͿΘ:Z&;ĞĐ͕ϮϬϭϮͿ

SKILLS 9 Coaching Football, Volleyball & Athletics.

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (PUBLICATIONS)

) Published a paper entitled “Response of Children with Down Syndrome to Physical

Dr. Usha S Nair ) DĞŵďĞƌŽĨK^ŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕'ŽĂhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ϮϬϭϬƚŽĚĂƚĞ͘

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr. S. S. Hasrani, Principal,

With immense pleasure, I express my deep felt of gratitude and indebtedness to my

I would like to record my gratitude to the football players of S.A.I, L.N.C.P.E,

dĂďůĞ͗ϴϭ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ĞůĨͲƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐ ŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ

The desire to provide peek physical and psychological performance during

Poor regeneration for athlete leads to overtraining. Stress comes to represent

The aim of recovery is to improve the general, physical, psychological

Water exercises are rapidly growing in popularity. An advantage of aquatic

Most land based exercise programmes involve the performance of some

However, because the gravitational pull is reduced when immersed in water,

Long term benefits of flexibility training are improvement in range of motion

Exercising in water can provide a stimulating and invigorating effect on the

A well structured water-based exercise programme has the potential to bring

The primary aim of post-session training is to provide an active recovery

Recovery is a proactive self initiated process to re-establish psychological and

It was hypothesised that there would be improvement in stress recovery following

Definition and Explanation of Terms

Low-impact water exercise

The activity performed in the water gently with less collision.

Stress is a process initiated when brain interprets an internal or external

Stress in individuals is defined as an interference that disturbs a person’s

Recovery is a proactive self-initiated process to reestablish physiological and

Significance of the Study

1. To know the effect of low-impact water exercises on stress recovery in

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Jeremy Ingrama, etal (2007) conducted a study on the effect of water

Vaile J, Halson S, Gill N, Dawson B.(2007) conducted a study on the effect of

M Suzuki, etal (2003) conducted a study on the effect of incorporating low

Halson Shona, L. etal. (2008) pursued a study on the physiological responses

Antonio Tessitore, etal.(2008) pursued a study on the effectiveness of active

RESTQ-76 by Michael Kellmann and K. Wolfgang Kallus (2002) is made up

The Recovery-Stress Questionnaire for Athletes identifies the current

Administration of the Test

The subjects of control and experimental groups were administrated by the

Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Experimental Training Programme

1. Water walk. 30(15 + 15) seconds. 6 meters. 2 sets

1. Outer thigh stretch. 20(10 + 10) seconds. 5 second each side. 2

$ % &

// $$$

0

* &

< "-. %= - + %7>:>

/- ?7>:@4& )*5/ +)

PERSONAL DATA • YƵĂůŝĨŝĞĚh'Ed;:ƵŶĞ͕ϮϬϭϮͿΘ:Z&;ĞĐ͕ϮϬϭϮͿ

Dr. Usha S Nair ) DĞŵďĞƌŽĨK^ŝŶWŚǇƐŝĐĂůĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕'ŽĂhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇ͕ϮϬϭϬƚŽĚĂƚĞ͘

dĂďůĞ͗ϴϭ EKsĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚĞĚŵŝĚƚĞƐƚĂŶĚƉŽƐƚƚĞƐƚ^ĞůĨͲƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐĐŽƌĞƐ ŽĨĞǆƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚ