12 - Chapter 5

Chapter 5- Data Analysis
CHAPTER – 5
DATA ANALYSIS
In the present experimental study data was collected from the Bhoir’s Gymkhana,
Dombivali, Mumbai, Gymnasts, a total number of fifty three Gymnasts, participated
voluntarily and completed the study successfully. All gymnasts participated at least at
the district / State / national Gymnastics championships and some also represented
India at international level. The age range of the subjects was between 9 to 17 years.
The collected data was evaluated by applying various statistics based on the
appropriateness of the data and objectives of the study. The analysis and results are
divided into seven sections, each specified to each objective of the study. The results
are presented in the tables and figures below, pertaining to their specific section.
Findings
The findings of the present study are presented in Section I to Section VII.
Section I - Effect of PST on Psychological skills
Section- I: The objective was to test the effect of Psychological skill training on the
Psychological skills of the Gymnasts. In the present study, a total of 53 male and
female gymnasts completed the training program out of 60 initially selected
Gymnasts. The gymnasts were selected and divided in to control and experimental
groups, 29 subjects in experimental group (16 boys and 13 girls) and 24 in control
group (12 boys and 12 girls).
To collect the data, subject’s anxiety was measured by administering the CSAI-2
questionnaire and the psychological skills were measured by using PSAS developed
by Sharma and Sharma, (2012), the data was collected at two stages, first, prior to the
six weeks PST program and second, after administering the six weeks training, to
examine the effect of PST on the Gymnast’s psychological skills.
156
Psychological Skills within pre and post trials between experimental and control
groups was analyzed by computing two way ANOVA to test the hypothesis. Two way
ANOVA was computed with 2 X 2 factorial design, pre and post testing and
experimental and control group division. Only interaction “f” value was considered in
the present study. Test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS, was further computed to
test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. Since, the mean has
increased from the pre data to the post data, the actual difference was computed by
effect size. Researcher being sensitive to the distinction between statistical
significance and practical significance added a step to the hypothesis testing by
estimating the study’s effect size. Estimate of effect size [M1-M2/ (SD1+ SD2/ 2)]
(Huck, Schuyler W, 2012) could allow the researcher to talk about the pure strength
of the measure, beyond saying simply that it is statistically significant or insignificant.
Section I, presents the findings on the effect of PST on psychological skills, the
findings with regard to different psychological skills are presented in the table No. 27
to table No. 61.
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics of Total Psychological Skills Scores
Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Pre 107.03 11.32 29
Experimental
Post 116.59 22.32 29
Pre 104.00 13.03 24
Control
Post 103.50 14.58 24
Pre 105.66 12.10 53
Total
Post 110.66 20.14 53
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the total psychological skill scores before and
after training between experimental and control group of selected sample. The tables
represents the mean of pre test score in psychological skills of experimental group is
107.03 (SD 11.32) and post test scores of psychological skills is 116.59 (SD 22.32),
Whereas, controlled group representing no significant change with pre test scores of
157
psychological skills as 104.00, SD 13.03 and post psychological skills 103.50, SD

14.58.
Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant difference between pre
and post psychological skills scores following training. The results are presented in
table 28.
Table 28: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Psychological Skills within pre and
post trials between experimental and control groups
Sum of Mean
Source Df F p
Squares Square
Psychological Skills *
1330.36 1 1330.36 18.37 .00*
groups
* p< 0.01.
The F test shows the significant difference at p<0.01 within pre and post trails
between groups experimental and control.
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Psychological
Skills with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 18.37, p< 0.01. It
means the scores of Psychological Skills before and after training between
experimental and control group differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group
does influence the psychological skills level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of interaction on psychological skills is not accepted.
As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS, was further

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. Findings are
represented in table 29.
158
Table 29: Pairwise Comparisons pre and post performances among experimental
and control group Psychological Skills performance
95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J) MD Std. For Difference
Performance Sig.
Groups Groups (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control 3.03 4.43 .49** -5.76 11.83
Control Exp -3.03 4.43 .49** -11.83 5.76
*
Post Exp Control 13.08 4.43 .00* 4.29 21.88
*
Control Exp -13.08 4.43 .00* -21.88 -4.29
* p< 0.01, ** p> 0.05.
The table reveals that the pre performances of the experimental and control groups are
similar as no significant difference was found (p, 0.49). However the difference
between the post performances of the group was found significant with p< 0.01
indicating that the performance of the experimental group is statistically higher (M=
116.59) than the control group (M= 103.50).
The adjusted p-value for the comparisons of experimental and control groups (each
for pre and post performance) is .05/2 = 0.03. By this criterion, the only difference,
which is not, significant is pre performance between experimental and control group.
Further post hoc was computed, to check the difference between the pre and post
trials of the experimental and controlled groups separately. Findings are presented in
table 30.
Table 30: Pairwise Comparisons among experimental and control group for the
pre and post Psychological Skills performance
MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J)
Groups Sig. For Difference
Performance Performance (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre Post -9.55* 4.22 .02* -17.92 -1.18
Exp *
Post Pre 9.55 4.22 .02* 1.18 17.92
Pre Post .50 4.64 .91 -8.70 9.70
Control
Post Pre -.50 4.64 .91 -9.70 8.70
*p<0.05.
159
A significant difference was found in the pre and post performance of Psychological
Skills within the experiment group as p<0.05, with no significant difference in the
Psychological Skills pre and post trials of the control group with p> 0.05.
The adjusted p-value for the comparisons of pre and post performance (each for
experimental and control groups) is .05/2 = 0.03. By this criterion, the only difference,
which is not, significant, is control group between pre and post performance. The
graphical representation of the results is presented in figure 6.
117
116
115
114
113
112
111
mean
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
pre post
experimental 107.03 116.59
control 104 103.5
Figure 6: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre and

Post Psychological Skills estimated marginal means
The graph represents the pre and the post psychological skills of experimental and
control groups, it has been noticed that there is greater improvement in the
psychological skills of the experimental group, while a little decline in the control
group’s psychological skills has been noticed. Descriptive Statistics with regard to
Arousal Regulation was computed. The results are presented in table 31.
160
Table 31: Descriptive Statistics of Arousal Regulation

Pre 17.86 2.61 29
Experimental
Post 21.03 3.03 29
Pre 17.21 3.16 24
Control
Post 17.04 2.66 24
Pre 17.57 2.86 53
Total
Post 19.23 3.48 53
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the performance scores before and after
training between experimental and control group of selected sample. The tables
represents the mean of pre performance of experimental group is 17.86 (SD 2.61) and
post performance is 21.03 (SD 3.030) with large mean effect size at 1.12, Whereas,
controlled group representing no significant change with pre performance as 17.21,
SD 3.16 and post performance 17.04, SD 2.66, and very small mean effect size at
0.06. Two way ANOVA was computed on arousal regulation to test the significant
difference between experimental and control group scores following training. The
results are presented in table 32.
Table 32: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Arousal Regulation within pre and
post trials between experimental and control groups
Sum of Mean
Source Df F P
Squares Square
Arousal Regulation *
73.21 1 73.21 15.07 .00*
groups
*p< 0.01.
The F test shows the significant difference at 0.01 within pre and post trails between
groups experimental and control. It is evident from the table that a significant
difference was found in the Arousal Regulation with in pre and post trails between
groups as F (Df=1, 51) 15.07, p< 0.01. It means the scores of Arousal Regulation
before and after training between experimental and control group differ significantly.
161
Thus, the null hypothesis that there is insignificant influence of interaction on

attention is not accepted.
As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS was further

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. Finding is
presented in table 33.
and control group arousal regulation performance

(J) MD Std.
Performance (I) Groups Sig. For Difference
Groups (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control .65 .79 .41** -.92 2.23
Control Exp -.65 .79 .41** -2.23 .92
Post Exp Control 3.99* .79 .00* 2.42 5.56
*
Control Exp -3.99 .79 .00* -5.56 -2.42
* p< 0.01, ** p> 0.05.
similar as no significant difference was found (p> 0.41). However the difference
between the post performances of the groups was found significant with p< 0.01
Further calculations were done, to check the difference between the pre and post trials
of the experimental and controlled groups separately. Further post hoc was computed
the findings are presented in table 34.
162
pre and post arousal regulation performance
(I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval

MD Std.
Groups arousal arousal Sig. For Difference
(I-J) Error Lower Upper
regulation regulation
Bound Bound
Pre Post -3.17* .75 .00* -4.67 -1.68
Exp *
Post Pre 3.17 .75 .00* 1.68 4.67
Pre Post .17 .83 .84 -1.48 1.81
Control
post Pre -.17 .83 .84 -1.81 1.48
*p< 0.01.
A significant difference could be noticed in the pre and post performance of arousal
regulation within the experiment group as p< 0.01, with no significant difference in
the arousal regulation pre and post trials of the control group with p as 0.84.
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
mean
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
pre post
control 17.21 17.04

Post arousal estimated marginal means
control group, it can be notice that there is greater improvement in the arousal
163
regulation of the experimental group, while a decline in the control group arousal
regulation has been noticed.
Descriptive Statistics with regard to Attention was computed. The results are
Table 35: Descriptive Statistics of Attention

Pre 12.41 2.90 29
Experimental
Post 15.03 2.65 29
Pre 12.79 2.21 24
Control
Post 12.87 2.19 24
Pre 12.58 2.59 53
Total
Post 14.06 2.66 53
post performance is 15.03 (SD 2.65), Whereas, controlled group representing no
significant change with pre performance as 12.79, SD 2.21 and post performance
12.87, SD 2.19. Two way ANOVA was computed on attention to test the significant
difference between experimental and control group scores. The results are presented
in table 36.
Table 36: Analysis of two way ANOVA of attention within pre and post trials
between experimental and control groups
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F P
42.27 1 42.27 7.37 .01*

Attention * Groups
* p< 0.05.
groups experimental and control.
164
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the attention with
in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 42) 7.37, p< 0.05. It means the
scores of Attention before and after training between experimental and control group
differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does influence the attention
level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is insignificant influence of
interaction on attention is not accepted.

and control group attention performance

Performance Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control -.38 .69 .59 -1.764 1.009
Control Exp .38 .69 .59 -1.009 1.764
*
Post Exp Control 2.16 .69 .01* .773 3.546
*
Control Exp -2.16 .69 .01* -3.546 -.773
* p<0.01.
The table reveals that the pre performances of the experimental and control groups
are similar as no significant difference was found (p, 0.59). However the difference
between the post performances of the group was found significant with p< 0.01
15.03) than the control group (M= 12.87)
of the experimental and controlled groups separately. Finding is presented in table 38.
165
pre and post attention performance

Groups Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre Post -2.62* .665 .00* -3.94 -1.30
Exp *
post Pre 2.62 .665 .00* 1.30 3.94
Pre Post -.08 .731 .91 -1.53 1.37
Control
post Pre .08 .731 .91 -1.37 1.53
*p< 0.01.
A significant difference could be noticed in the pre and post performance of attention
within the experiment group as p< 0.01, with no significant difference in the attention
pre and post trials of the control group with p > 0.05.
16
15.5
15
14.5
mean
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
pre post
control 12.79 12.87

Post Attention estimated marginal means
166
control group, it can be notice that there is greater improvement in the attention of the
experimental group, while a minor improvement in the control group’s attention has
been noticed.
Descriptive Statistics with regard to self-awareness was computed. The results are
Table 39: Descriptive Statistics of Self-Awareness

Pre 19.62 2.64 29
Experimental
Post 20.93 2.17 29
Pre 19.58 3.12 24
Control
Post 18.46 3.66 24
Pre 19.60 2.84 53
Total
Post 19.81 3.16 53
18.46, SD 3.66. Two way ANOVA was computed on arousal regulation to test the
significant difference between experimental and control group scores. The results are
Table 40: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Self-Awareness within pre and post
trials between experimental and control groups
Sum of Mean
Source Df F p
Squares Square
Self-Awareness * groups 38.94 1 38.94 6.08 .01*
*p<0.05.
167
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Self-Awareness
with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 6.08, p< 0.05. It means the
scores of Self-Awareness before and after training between experimental and control
group differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does influence the self-
awareness level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is insignificant
influence of interaction on self-awareness is not accepted.

and control group Self-Awareness performance

(I) (J) MD Std.
Performance Sig. For Difference
Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control .04 .80 .96 -1.55 1.62
Control Exp -.04 .80 .96 -1.62 1.55
Post Exp Control 2.47* .80 .00* .88 4.06
*
Control Exp -2.47 .80 .00* -4.06 -.88
*p<0.01.
168
Further calculations were computed, to check the difference between pre and post
trials of the experimental and controlled groups separately. The Finding is presented
in table 42.
pre and post Self-Awareness performance

MD Std.
Groups Self- Self- Sig. For Difference
Awareness Awareness
Bound Bound
Pre post -1.31 .76 .09* -2.82 .20
Exp
Post Pre 1.31 .76 .09* -.20 2.82
Pre post 1.13 .84 .18 -.53 2.79
Control
Post Pre -1.13 .84 .18 -2.78 .55
*p>0.05.
An insignificant difference is noticed between pre and post performance of Self-

Awareness within the experiment group as p> 0.05, along with no significant
difference in the Self-Awareness pre and post trials of the control group with p>0.05.
experimental and control groups) is .05/2 = 0.03. By this criterion, there is no
significant, difference in experimental and control group between pre and post
performance. The graphical representation of the results is presented in figure 9.
22
21.5
21
20.5
mean
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
pre post
control 19.58 18.46

Post Self-awareness estimated marginal means
169
control group, it can be notice that there is an improvement in the self awareness of
the experimental group, but statistically insignificant, while a decline in the control
group’s self awareness has been noticed.
Descriptive Statistics for self-confidence was computed. The results are presented in
table 43.
Table 43: Descriptive Statistics of Self Confidence

Pre 14.20 2.82 29
Experimental
Post 16.51 2.41 29
Pre 13.37 2.58 24
Control
Post 13.92 2.28 24
Pre 13.83 2.72 53
Total
Post 15.34 2.67 53
13.92, SD 2.28. Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant
difference. The results are presented in table 44.
Table 44: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Self Confidence within pre and post
Sum of Mean
Source Df F p
Squares Square
Self Confidence * groups 20.54 1 20.54 8.72 .00*
* p< 0.01.
170
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Self
Confidence with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 8.72, p< 0.01.
It means the scores of Self Confidence before and after training between experimental
and control group differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does
influence the confidence level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is an
insignificant influence of interaction on confidence is not accepted.

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. The results are
and control group Self Confidence performance
(I) (J) MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control .83 .70 .24 -.56 2.22
Control Exp -.83 .70 .24 -2.22 .56
*
Post Exp Control 2.60 .70 .00* 1.21 3.99
*
Control Exp -2.60 .70 .00* -3.99 -1.21
* p< 0.01.
similar as no significant difference was found (p,>0.5). However the difference
Further calculations were computed, to check the difference between the pre and post
trials of the experimental and controlled groups separately. The results are presented
in table 46.
171
pre and post Self Confidence performance

MD Std.
Groups Self Self Sig. For Difference
Confidence Confidence (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre Post -2.31* .67 .00* -3.63 -.98
Exp *
Post Pre 2.31 .67 .00* .99 3.63
Pre Post -.54 .73 .46 -1.99 .91
Control
Post Pre .54 .73 .46 -.91 1.99
* p< 0.01.
A significant difference could be noticed in the pre and post performance of Self
Confidence within the experiment group as p< 0.01, with no significant difference in
the Self Confidence pre and post trials of the control group with p > 0.05.
17
16.5
16
15.5
mean
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
pre post
control 13.37 13.92
Figure 10: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre

and Post performance estimated marginal means
control group, it can be notice that there is greater improvement in the self confidence
of the experimental group, in comparison to the control group’s self confidence.
172
Descriptive Statistics for Imagery was computed. The results are presented in table
47.
Table 47: Descriptive Statistics of Imagery

Pre 15.55 2.53 29
Experimental
Post 17.90 1.86 29
Pre 14.83 2.70 24
Control
Post 14.87 2.29 24
Pre 15.22 2.61 53
Total
Post 16.53 2.55 53
14.87, SD 2.29. Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant difference
between groups scores following training. The results are presented in table 48.
Table 48: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Imagery within pre and post trials
Sum of
Source Df Mean Square F p
Squares
Imagery * groups 34.83 1 34.83 10.78 .00*
*p<0.01.
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Imagery with
in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 10.78, p< 0.01. It means the
173
scores of Imagery before and after training between experimental and control group
differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does influence the imagery
level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is an insignificant influence of
interaction on imagery is not accepted.

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. Further post
hoc was computed the findings are presented in table 49.
and control group Imagery performance

Performance Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control .77 .65 .27 -.57 2.00
Control Exp -.77 .65 .27 -2.00 .57
Post Exp Control 3.02* .65 .00* 1.73 4.31
*
Control Exp -3.02 .65 .00* -4.31 -1.73
*p<0.05.
of the experimental and controlled groups separately. Finding is presented in table 50.
174
pre and post Imagery performance

(I) (J)
Groups Sig. For Difference
Imagery Imagery (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre post -2.34* .62 .00* -3.57 -1.12
Exp *
post Pre 2.34 .62 .00* 1.12 3.57
Pre post -.04 .68 .95 -1.39 1.30
Control
post Pre .04 .68 .95 -1.30 1.39
*p<0.01.
A significant difference could be noticed in the pre and post performance of Imagery
within the experiment group as p< 0.01, with no significant difference in the Imagery
pre and post trials of the control group with p > 0.05.
graph is presented in the figure 11.
18
17.5
17
16.5
mean
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
pre post
control 14.83 14.87

control group, it can be notice that there is greater improvement in the Imagery of the
experimental group, while a little improvement in the control group’s imagery has
175
been noticed. Descriptive Statistics with regard to motivation was computed. The
results are presented in table 51.
Table 51: Descriptive Statistics of Motivation

Pre 16.00 1.56 29
Experimental
Post 16.62 1.82 29
Pre 15.50 2.67 24
Control
Post 14.91 2.98 24
Pre 15.77 2.13 53
Total
Post 15.85 2.54 53
14.91, SD 2.98. Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant difference
between pre and post motivation scores following training. The results are presented
in table 52.
Table 52: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Motivation within pre and post trials
Motivation * groups 9.52 1 9.52 4.40 .04*
*p<0.05.
176
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Motivation
with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 4.40, p< 0.05. It means the
scores of Motivation before and after training between experimental and control
group differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does influence the
motivation level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is an insignificant
influence of interaction on motivation is not accepted.

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. The finding is
and control group Motivation performance

Bound Bound
Pre Exp Control .50 .63 .43 -.75 1.75
Control Exp -.50 .63 .43 -1.75 .75
*
Post Exp Control 1.70 .63 .00* .46 2.95
*
Control Exp -1.70 .63 .00* -2.95 -.46
*p< 0.01.
of the experimental and controlled groups separately. The results are presented in
table 54.
177
pre and post Motivation performance

Groups Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre post -.62 .59 .30* -1.81 .56
Exp
Post Pre .62 .59 .30* -.56 1.80
Pre post .58 .65 .38* -.72 1.89
Control
Post Pre -.58 .65 .38* -1.89 .72
*p>0.05.
A significant difference was not found in the pre and post performance of Motivation
within the experiment group as p>0.05, with no significant difference in the
Motivation pre and post trials of the control group with p > 0.05.
experimental and control groups) is .05/2 = 0.03. By this criterion, experimental and
control groups represents insignificant difference between pre and post performance.
The graph representation is presented in figure 12.
17
16.8
16.6
16.4
16.2
16
15.8
mean
15.6
15.4
15.2
15
14.8
14.6
14.4
14.2
14
pre post
experimental 16 16.62
control 15.5 14.91

178
control group, it can be notice that there is little improvement in the motivation of the
experimental group, while a decline in the control group’s motivation has been
noticed.
Table 55: Descriptive Statistics of Goal-setting

Experimental
11.38 1.63 29
Pre Control 10.71 2.37 24
Total
11.07 2.01 53
Experimental
12.27 1.51 29
Post Control
10.96 1.83 24
Total
11.68 1.77 53
post performance is 12.27 (SD 1.51) small mean effect size at 0.50, Whereas,
controlled group representing pre performance as 10.71, SD 2.37 and post
performance 10.96, SD 1.83, a mean effect size difference at 0.11.
Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant difference. The results are
Table 56: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Cognitive anxiety within pre and post
Goal-setting * groups 2.74 1 2.74 .99 .32*
*p>0.05.
The F test shows the insignificant difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between
179
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Goal-
setting with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 0.99, p> 0.05. It
means the scores of goal-setting before and after training between experimental and
control group do not differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does not
influence the goal setting ability of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no
significant influence of interaction on goal setting is accepted. The graphical
presentation is given in the figure 13.
13
12.5
12
mean
11.5
11
10.5
10
pre post
control 10.71 10.95

The graph represents the pre and the post goal setting of experimental and control
group, it can be notice that there is an improvement in the goal setting ability of the
experimental group, while a rise in the control group’s goal setting ability has also
been noticed.
180
Measurement of Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety By Using CSAI-2
Cognitive and somatic anxiety was measured by administering CSAI-2. This test also
measures the Self-confidence, but for the purpose of present study, self-confidence
was not analyzed using CSAI-2, as it has been already analyzed using PSAS-G
earlier. The results with regard to descriptive statistics on cognitive anxiety is
Table 57: Descriptive Statistics of Cognitive anxiety

Experimental 20.31 4.24 29
Total 20.07 4.48 53
Post Control 20.04 3.78 24
Total 19.54 3.64 53
post performance is 19.13 (SD 3.54) small mean effect size at 0.20, Whereas,
performance 20.04, SD 3.78, a negative mean effect size – 0.06. Two way analysis
was computed to find out the significant difference. The results are presented in table
58.
Table 58: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Cognitive anxiety within pre and post
Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F p
Cognitive anxiety * groups 13.28 1 13.28 1.67 .20*
*p>0.05.
181
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Cognitive
anxiety with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 1.67, p> 0.05. It
means the scores of Cognitive anxiety before and after training between experimental
and control group do not differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does
not influence the cognitive anxiety level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of interaction on cognitive anxiety is accepted.
Whereas the effect size of the mean shows that there is difference in mean of less size.
The graphical presentation is given in the figure 14.
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
mean
19.5
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
pre post
control 19.79 20.04

The graph represents the pre and the post cognitive anxiety of experimental and
control group, it can be notice that there is a decline in the cognitive anxiety of the
experimental group, while a rise in the control group’s cognitive anxiety has been
noticed.
Somatic Anxiety was also measured by using CSAI-2 and the descriptive statistics
with regard to somatic anxiety is presented in table 59.
182
Table 59: Descriptive Statistics of Somatic anxiety

Total 20.47 4.70 53
Post Control 20.79 4.09 24
Total 19.37 4.67 53
post performance is 18.20 (SD 4.86), small mean effect size at 0.40, Whereas,
performance 20.79, SD 4.09, mean effect size 0.05 which shows almost no effect.
Two way analysis was computed to find out the significant difference. The results are
Table 60: Analysis of two way ANOVA of Somatic anxiety within pre and post
Sum of
Source Df Mean Square F p
Squares
Somatic anxiety * groups 17.21 1 17.21 1.38 .24*
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Somatic
anxiety with in pre and post trails between groups as F (Df=1, 51) 1.38, p> 0.05. It
means the scores of Somatic anxiety before and after training between experimental
and control group do not differ significantly. So, interaction of trials with group does
183
not influence the somatic anxiety level of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there
is no significant influence of interaction on somatic anxiety is accepted. The graphical
presentation is given in figure 15.
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
mean
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
pre post
control 21 20.79

The graph represents the pre and the post somatic anxiety of experimental and control
group, it can be notice that there is a good decline in the somatic anxiety of the
experimental group, while a very little decline in the control group’s somatic anxiety
has been noticed.
Subjects Psychological skills were analyzed and were identified as the strength of the
skill among gymnasts before training and after training. The results are presented in
table 61.
184
Table 61: Scores of Psychological skills before starting the PST and After the
completion of six weeks PST program
Psychological skills Assessed by administering PSAS-G

S.No Arousal Self Self
Total PST Goal setting Imagery Attention Motivation
regulation awareness confidence
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1 125
114 21 24 13 14 21 21 18 18 11 17 16 14 14 17
2 127
105 17 23 10 11 20 21 16 19 12 18 15 17 15 18
3
102 125 18 23 10 12 20 23 15 20 12 16 16 17 11 14
4 127
138 25 18 12 15 25 24 20 20 20 14 16 16 20 20
5
107 110 18 17 11 13 19 20 15 16 14 14 17 15 13 15
6 130
104 17 23 10 14 20 22 18 19 10 17 16 16 13 19
7
108 136 21 25 10 13 23 23 17 20 10 18 15 18 12 19
8 99
98 17 16 11 10 20 21 14 17 12 11 13 13 11 11
9 109
100 19 19 12 13 15 17 14 17 11 12 16 17 13 14
10
105 120 16 22 11 11 20 19 16 19 12 15 15 17 15 17
11 135
122 20 25 14 13 22 22 17 20 13 17 19 19 17 19
12
111 121 19 20 12 12 21 19 19 20 10 16 16 17 14 17
13 108
110 18 17 15 11 22 19 16 15 11 16 16 14 12 16
14
113 119 19 20 12 13 22 20 14 17 14 17 15 15 17 17
15
93 119 19 19 12 12 13 23 9 18 12 16 15 15 13 16
16 134
121 19 22 12 14 18 24 17 20 17 16 20 19 18 19
17
105 120 16 20 12 11 21 23 16 18 12 14 15 18 13 16
18 106
103 17 20 11 10 20 18 17 15 9 13 15 15 14 15
19
95 125 18 24 9 12 17 20 13 18 12 16 13 17 13 18
20 123
121 20 24 14 13 21 22 16 17 18 16 15 15 17 16
21 105
97 16 21 12 13 15 22 13 13 10 9 18 16 13 11
22
93 98 14 16 11 9 18 16 13 15 9 10 16 18 12 14
23 128
106 16 22 9 12 19 22 14 18 14 18 15 20 19 16
24
85 134 11 25 10 15 18 20 13 18 6 20 18 18 9 18
25 132
129 21 24 14 14 22 24 19 20 16 16 17 14 20 20
26
107 127 19 22 10 13 17 22 15 18 14 14 18 19 14 19
27
107 97 15 14 12 11 23 17 17 16 15 10 15 16 10 13
185
Note: low Average High Very High
The table indicates the pre and post score of PST assessment of all the Gymnasts
those who participated in the training program for six weeks. The training program
composite six psychological skills namely, Goal-setting, attention, Self-awareness,
arousal regulation, imagery and self-confidence. It is evident from the table that most
of the Gymnasts had scored high in the pre Psychological Skills assessment and some
of the gymnast scored average in arousal regulation, self-awareness and attention,
while the post Psychological Skills assessment shows very high scores of the
Gymnasts.
Psychological skills of the Gymnasts highlighted with yellow colour indicates low
scores, however Gymnasts have improved from average to high and very high are
indicated with green and brown colour respectively. Comparing pre and post scores,
an improvement in the psychological skills of the Gymnasts has been observed.
186
Section II - Effect of PST program on the Performance of various Gymnastics

Apparatuses
Section II- presents the results with regard the effect of PST program on the
performance of the gymnasts on various apparatus, in the present study 53 Gymnasts
(male and female) participated, There were 29 subjects in experimental group (16
boys and 13 girls), and 24 subjects in control group (12 boys and 12 girls). The
Gymnasts in experimental group were provided with the PST for six weeks and were
evaluated to check the effect of PST on performance. Their performance on each
apparatus was evaluated at two stages i.e prior to the PST and after completion of the
training.
One-Way ANCOVA was computed with pre performance covariated (to remove the
effects of performance prior to the PST imparted) as the subjects were unequally
distributed among the groups, Further the mean difference between experimental and
control groups were analyzed by pairwise comparison, level of significance was set at
0.05. The findings with regard to different apparatuses are presented in the table No.
62 to table No. 89.
Statistical analysis has shown that the data is statistically insignificant, however the
post test mean is greater than the pre test mean. In the present study, beyond statistical
significance, the findings appeared of considerable practical significance. As,
gymnastics is a game in which the code of points is designed in such a way that the
difficulty level (values ranging from 0.10 to 0.70) and the execution of the gymnasts
are evaluated by providing the score in points (sum of 0.10, 0.20 etc) i.e score
improves with 0.10, 0.20 etc. so even the minute change in the scores of the gymnasts
is a big achievement because to learn a new skill higher with a value of 0.10 in
difficulty level, take months of practice.
Since, statistically insignificance was obtained between means, although the mean has
increased from the pre data to the post data, the actual difference was computed by
effect size. Researcher being sensitive to the distinction between statistical
187
significance and practical significance added a step to the hypothesis testing by

estimating the study’s effect size. Estimate of effect size [M1-M2/ (SD1+ SD2/ 2)]
(Huck, Schuyler W, 2012) could allow the researcher to talk about the pure strength
of the measure, beyond saying simply that it is statistically significant or insignificant.
In the following section, only group’s results have been presented in the results of
between subjects effect, as effect between experimental and control groups has to be
checked.
Effect of PST on the Performance of The Indian Boys Gymnasts
Performance was measured by adding the scores on all the apparatuses i.e six
apparatuses for boys and four apparatuses for girls.
The descriptive statistics was computed on Boys all-around performance and the
results are given in the table 62.
Table 62: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Boys All
around
Groups Experimental Group Control Group
Adjusted Mean 32.90 31.47
Table reflects the mean value of the post performance of experimental group higher
(32.90) as compare to lower performance (31.47) of the control group.
one way ANCOVA was computed on all around performance of Boys. The result is
presented in the table 63.
Table 63: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of All around boys performance within
pre and post trials between experimental and control groups
Source of Variance Df SS MSS F p

Groups
1 10.88 10.88 1.07 .31*
(Experimental and Control)
*p>0.05.
a. R Squared = .974 (Adjusted R Squared = .972)
188
The above table shows the One-Way ANCOVA calculations, showing that there is an
insignificant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 1.07 at p
> 0.05. It means that the adjusted mean scores of post performance in players of
experimental and control group do not differ significantly. So, there is no group
influence on the performance of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there would be
no significant influence of group on performance of players when pre performance of
control and experimental group is considered as covariate, is accepted.
The graphical presentation of the post performances of the experimental and control
groups are presented in figure 16.
33.5
32.9
33
M 32.5
E
32
A 31.47
N 31.5
31
30.5
1 2
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
Figure 16: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Post

performance estimated marginal means
The graph clearly represents, when pre performance being equal (covariated), the post
performance of experimental group is higher (32.9) when compared to the
performance of control group (31.47). Statistically the difference is insignificant but
due to PST intervention, the improvement in the performance of experimental group
is greater than the improvement in performance of control group in the absence of the
PST training. To check the actual difference in the post performances of the
experimental and control group, the effect size was computed, which is 0.75, which
falls in the category of high difference in the performance.
189
Apparatus wise analysis of performance was also done, the Descriptive Statistics of
Floor exercise id presented in table 64.
Table 64: Descriptive Statistics of Boys Experimental and Control Group on

Floor Exercise
(7.75) as compare to lower performance (7.55) of the control group.
One way ANCOVA was computed to test the post mean difference by covariating the
pre performance. The result is presented in the table 65.
Table 65: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of Floor Exercise within pre and post
Source of Variance Df SS MSS F P

Groups
1 .26 .26 .08 .77*
*p>0.05.
a. R Squared = .811 (Adjusted R Squared = .796)
The above table shows the One-Way ANCOVA calculations, showing that there is no
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = .08 at p >
0.05. It means that the adjusted mean scores of post performance in players of
influence on the performance of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is an
insignificant influence of group on performance of players when pre performance of
control and experimental group is considered as covariate, is accepted. The graphical
presentation of the post performances of the experimental and control groups are
presented in figure 17.
190
7.8 7.75
7.75
7.7
M
E 7.65
A 7.6 7.55
N 7.55
7.5
7.45
1 2

performance on Floor Exercise estimated marginal means
The graph clearly represents, that when pre performance being equal, the post
performance of control group (7.55). Statistically the difference is insignificant but
due to PST intervention, the improvement in the performance of experimental group
is greater than improvement in performance of control group. To check the actual
difference in the post performances of the experimental and control group, the effect
size was computed, which is 0.23, and falls in the category of small difference.
Descriptive Statistics on Horizontal Bar was computed and the results are presented in
table 66.
Table 66: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on High bar
(3.85) as compare to lower performance (2.72) of the control group. one way
ANCOVA was computed on Horizontal Bar’s performance of Boys. The result is
191
Table 67: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of high bar within pre and post trials

Groups
1 7.78 7.78 3.75 .06*
*p>0.05. a. R Squared = .888 (Adjusted R Squared = .879)
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 3.75 at p >
influence on the performance of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is an
insignificant influence of group on performance of players when pre performance of
representation of data is presented in figure 18.
3.85
3.9
3.7
M 3.5
E 3.3
A 3.1
N 2.9 2.72
2.7
2.5
1 2

performance on High Bar estimated marginal means
192
performance of control group (2.72). Statistically the difference might be insignificant

but due to PST intervention, the improvement in the performance of experimental
group is greater than improvement in performance of control group. To check the
actual difference, effect size was computed which is 0.63, which is a moderate
difference.
Descriptive Statistics on Parallel Bars was computed. The results are presented in
table 68.
Table 68: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Parallel

Bars
(4.24) as compare to lower performance (3.50) of the control group. one way
ANCOVA was computed on parallel bars. The result is presented in the table 69.
Table 69: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of Parallel Bars within pre and post

Groups
1 2.96 2.96 3.64 .07*
*p>0.05. a. R Squared = .953 (Adjusted R Squared = .949)
influence on the performance of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no
significant influence of group on performance of players when pre performance of
193

4.4 4.24
4.2
M 4
E 3.8
A 3.5
3.6
N 3.4
3.2
3
1 2
Figure 19: Graphical representation of Boys Experiment and Control Group’s

Post performance on Parallel Bars estimated marginal means
actual difference, the effect size was calculated, the effect size is 0.77, which falls in
the category of high difference.
Descriptive Statistics on pommel horse was computed. The result is presented in table
70.
Table 70: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Pommel

Horse
194
(3.22) as compare to lower performance (2.53) of the control group. One way
ANCOVA was computed and the result is presented in the table 71.
Table 71: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of Pommel Horse within pre and post

Groups
1 2.74 2.74 2.49 .13*
*p>0.05, a. R Squared = .913 (Adjusted R Squared = .906)
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 2.49 at p>
control and experimental group is considered as covariate, is accepted.
The graphical representation of the experimental and controlled group post means are
presented below. The graphical representation of data is presented in figure 20.
3.4
3.22
3.2
M
E 3
A
2.8
N
2.53
2.6
2.4
1 2

performance on Pommel Horse estimated marginal means
195
group is greater than improvement in performance of control group. To test the actual
difference, effect size was calculated, the effect size is 0.84, which falls in the
category of high difference.
Descriptive Statistics on Roman Rings was computed. The result is presented in table
72.
Table 72: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Roman

Rings
Table 73: Analysis of one way ANCOVA of Roman rings within pre and post

Groups
1 .03 .03 .02 .88*
*p>0.05., R Squared = .924 (Adjusted R Squared = .918)
196

4.74 4.72
4.72
4.7
M
E 4.68
4.65
A 4.66
N 4.64
4.62
4.6
1 2

performance on Roman Rings estimated marginal means
group is greater than improvement in performance of control group. The actual
difference of means calculated by effect size is 1.19, which falls in the category of
high difference.
Descriptive Statistics on Vault Table was computed. The result is presented in table
74.
197
Table 74: Descriptive Statistics of Boys Experimental and Control Group on

Vault Table
Table 75: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Vault Table within pre and post

Groups
1 .46 .46 .15 .70*
*p>0.05, R Squared = .692 (Adjusted R Squared = .668)
198
10 9.92
9.9
M 9.8
E
9.7
A 9.59
N 9.6
9.5
9.4
1 2

performance on Vault Table estimated marginal means
group is greater than improvement in performance of control group. The difference in
post means of experimental and control group mean, calculated by effect size is 1.28,
which falls in the category of high difference.
Effect of PST on The Performance of The Girls
Since the girl’s apparatus are different from the boys, the effect of PST was also
studied on All around performance and presented from table No. 76 to 84 and the
findings with regard to individual apparatuses is presented from table No. 85 to table
No. 96.
Table 76: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group All around
performance of Girls
199
ANCOVA was and the result is presented in the table 77.
Table 77: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Girl’s All around performance
within pre and post trials between experimental and control groups

Groups
1 84.00 84.00 5.28 .03*
*p<0.05, a. R Squared = .933 (Adjusted R Squared = .927)
The above table shows the One-Way ANCOVA calculations, showing that there is
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 5.28 at p<
experimental and control group differ significantly. So, there is group influence on the
performance of players. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence
of group on performance of players when pre performance of control and
experimental group is considered as covariate, is not accepted.
Further the mean difference between experimental and control group were analyzed
by computing the data. The finding is presented in table 78
Table 78: Pairwise Comparisons of post adjusted group mean for All Around
performance among experimental and control group
MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval For

(I) Group (J) Group Sig. Difference
(I-J) Error
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Exp Cont 4.70* 2.04 .03* .45 8.95
*p<0.05.
The above table exhibits that the mean difference among Experimental and Controlled
group is 4.70, which is significant at p < 0.05. Graphical representation is given in
figure 23.
200
25 24.16
24.5
24
23.5
M 23
E 22.5
22
A 21.5
N 21
20.5
20 19.45
19.5
19
1 2

performance of all around performance estimated marginal means
performance of control group (19.45). Statistically also the difference is significant.
PST intervention’s effect on,the improvement in the performance of experimental
group was tested by computing effect size. Therefore, to check the actual difference in
the means effect size was computed, and the effect size is 1.13, which represents the
high difference.
Descriptive Statistics on vault table was computed. The result is presented in table 79.
Table 79: Descriptive Statistics of Girls Experimental and Control Group on

Vault table
201
Table 80: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Vault table within pre and post
Source of Variance df SS MSS F p

Groups
1 38.49 38.49 5.54 .03*
*p<0.05, R Squared = .803 (Adjusted R Squared = .784)
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 5.54 at p<
experimental and control group differ significantly. So, group influence the
by computing the data. The finding is presented in table 81.
Table 81: Pairwise Comparisons of post adjusted group mean for Vault Table
performance among experimental and control group

(I-J) Error
Exp Cont 2.8* 1.19 .02* .33 5.27
*p<0.05.
group is 2.80, which is significant at p < 0.05. The graphical representation of the
mean difference is given in the figure 24.
202
7 6.86
6.5
6
M
E 5.5
A 5
N 4.5 4.06
4
3.5
1 2

performance on Vault table estimated marginal means
PST intervention’s effect on the improvement in the performance of experimental
group was tested by computing the effect size. Therefore, the actual mean difference
was checked by calculating the effect size, i.e 1.36, which falls in the category of high
difference.
Descriptive Statistics on Uneven Bars was computed. The result is presented in table
82.
Table 82: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Uneven

bars
ANCOVA was computed and the result is shown in the table 83.
203
Table 83: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Uneven bars within pre and post
Source of Variance df SS MSS F P

Groups
1 3.56 3.56 3.77 .06*
*p>0.05, R Squared = .944 (Adjusted R Squared = .938)
representation is given in figure 25.
3.4 3.26
3.2
M 3
E 2.8
A 2.6
N 2.32
2.4
2.2
2
1 2

performance on Uneven bars estimated marginal means
204

actual difference between the means, effect size was calculated, the effect size is 2.29,
which falls in the category of high difference. Descriptive Statistics on Balancing
Beam was computed. The result is presented in table 84.
Table 84: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Balance

beam
Table 85: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Balancing beam within pre and post
Source of Variance df SS MSS F p

Groups
1 4.18 4.18 6.20 .02*
*p<0.05, R Squared = .963 (Adjusted R Squared = .959)
The above table shows the One-Way ANCOVA anysis, showing that there is
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 6.20 at p <
experimental group is considered as covariate, is not accepted. Further the mean
difference between experimental and control group were analyzed by computing LSD
the data. The finding is presented in table 86.
205
Table 86: Pairwise Comparisons of post adjusted group mean for Balancing
beam performances for experimental and control group

(I-J) Error
Exp Cont 1.07* .43 .02* .18 1.97
*p<0.05.
group is 1.07, which is significant at p < 0.05. The graphical representation of the
means is given in the figure 26.
10 9.92
9.9
M 9.8
E
9.7
A 9.59
N 9.6
9.5
9.4
1 2

performance on Balancing beam estimated marginal means
group was tested by computing the effect size. Therefore, to check the actual
difference in the mean, effect size was calculated i.e 0.39, which represents a less
difference.
206
Table 87: Descriptive Statistics of Experimental and Control Group on Floor

exercise
Table 88: Analysis of One way ANCOVA of Floor exercise within pre and post

Groups
1 16.07 16.08 10.37 .00*
* p< 0.01, R Squared = .811 (Adjusted R Squared = .793)
significant difference in post performance among groups as obtained F = 10.37 at p <
Table 89: Pairwise Comparisons of post adjusted group mean for Floor Exercise
performances for experimental and control group

(I-J) Error
Exp Cont 1.86* .58 .00* .66 3.06
* p< 0.01.
207
group is 1.86, which is significant at p < 0.01. The graphical representation is given in
the figure 27.
5.9 5.67
5.7
M 5.5
E 5.3
A 5.1
N 4.9
4.6
4.7
4.5
1 2

performance on Floor exercise estimated marginal means
The graph clearly represents that when pre performance being equal, the post
group was tested by computing the effect size. To check the actual difference in the
means, effect size was calculated, i.e 1.82, which represents a large difference.
208
Section III- Correlation Between Gymnast’s Performance and their

Psychological Skills
In the present section, The Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine
the relationship between the gymnast’s performance and their psychological skills
level of the Gymnasts. The data was collected after the successful completion of six
weeks Psychological Skills training program, the scores of performance on various
apparatuses were also recorded and psychological skills were measured and recorded
by using PSAS for the purpose of evaluation. The results are presented in the table
No. 90 and table No. 91.
Table 90: Pearson correlation coefficient between Psychological skills and

performance on various apparatuses of Male gymnasts
Performance on Apparatuses
Psychological
Vault Floor Parallel Pommel Roman Total
skills High Bar
Table Exercise Bars Horse Rings Performance
* * *
Arousal .32 .16 .38 .41 .39 .34 .39*
Goal Setting .46* .28 .36 .37 .28 .33 .40*
Imagery .40* .29 .43* .52** .55** .45* .51**
Attention .25 .31 .37 .38 .26 .31 .37
Motivation .26 .06 .29 .29 .34 .21 .28
Self Awareness .03 -.01 .18 .25 .24 .15 .16
Self Confidence .38* .13 .47* .46* .51** .47* .46*
Total Psy. Skills .35 .20 .43* .47* .45* .40* .44*
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The results of Pearson product-moment correlation reveals that a significant positive

relationship exist between arousal and high bar, parallel bars, pommel horse and the
total performance of the boys as r (25) = 0.38, 0.41, 0.39 and 0.39 respectively, p<
0.05. Whereas the arousal regulation is insignificantly related with Vault table, floor
exercise and Roman rings as r (25) = 0.32, 0.16 and 0.34 respectively, p> 0.05. The
Goal-setting is correlated with the performance on Vault table and with total
performance scores (r (25) = 0.46 and 0.40 respectively, p< 0.05), but not correlated
with floor exercise, high bar, parallel bars, pommel horse and roman rings as r (25) =
0.28, 0.36, 0.37, 0.28 and 0.33 respectively, p> 0.05. Imagery represents a significant
209
positive relation with the performance on Vault table, High bar and Roman Rings r
(25) = 0.40, 0.43 and 0.45 respectively, p< 0.05, and Imagery is highly correlated with
Parallel Bars, Pommel Horse and overall performance scores at r (25) = 0.52, 0.55 and
0.51 respectively, p< 0.01. Whereas, Imagery is not correlated with Floor exercise
performance as obtained r is 0.29, p> 0.05. Self-confidence is correlated with Vault
Table, High Bar, Parallel Bars, Roman Rings and Total performance scores as r (25) =
0.38, 0.47, 0.46, 0.47 and 0.46 respectively, p< 0.05 and positivly correlated with
Pommel Horse as r (25) = 0.51, p< 0.01 and not correlated with floor exercise
performance as r = 0.13, p> 0.05. The total Psychological Skills performance of the
Gymnasts are significantly positively related with the performance on High Bar,
Parallel Bars, Pommel Horse, Roman Rings and overall performance on all the
apparatuses at (r (25) = 0.43, 0.47, 0.45, 0.40 and 0.44 respectively, p< 0.05).
Whereas insignificantly correlated with vault table and floor exercise performance as
r (25) = 0.35 and 0.20 respectively, p> 0.05.
Moreover, the variables Attention, Motivation, Self-awareness and performance on

Floor exercise are not correlated with any of the variables.
Table 91: Pearson Correlation Coefficient between Psychological Skills and

Performance on Various Apparatuses of Female Gymnasts
Psychological Performance on Apparatuses

Skills Vault Floor Uneven Balancing Total
Table Exercise Bars Beam Performance
Arousal
.37 .44* .50* .46* .48*
Regulation
Goal Setting -.06 .19 .17 .05 .07
Imagery .25 .26 .41* .48* .39
** * *
Attention .38 .62 .49 .47 .52**
Motivation -.03 .14 .12 .09 .07
Self Awareness .20 .51** .29 .41* .36
Self Confidence .42* .48* .56** .56** .55**
Total Psy. Skills .29 .50* .47* .48* .46*
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
210
The Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship

between the female Gymnast’s performance and their psychological skills. The results
reveals that a significant positive relationship exist between arousal regulation and
Floor exercise, uneven bars, balancing beam and the overall performance of female
gymnasts as r (23) = 0.44, 0.50, 0.46 and 0.48 respectively, p< 0.05. Whereas arousal
regulation is not significantly related with Vault table as r (23) = 0.32, p> 0.05.
Imagery represents a significant positive relation with the performance on uneven
bars, balancing beam and total performance scores r (23) = 0.41, 0.48 and 0.39
respectively, p< 0.05, Whereas, Imagery is not significantly correlated with vault
table and Floor exercise performance as r 0.25 and 0.26 respectively, p> 0.05.
Attention is correlated with uneven bars and balancing beam as r = .49 and .47
respectively, p < .05, whereas highly correlated with floor exercise and overall
performance scores as r (23) = .62 and .52 respectively, p< .01, but does not correlate
significantly with the performance on vault table. Self awareness is significantly
correlated with floor exercise and balancing beam performance as r = .51, p< .01 and
r = .41, p< .05 respectively, whereas no correlation exist with vault table, uneven bars
and overall performance scores as r 0.20, 0.29 and 0.36 respectively, p> 0.05. Self-
confidence is correlated with Vault Table and floor exercise performance scores as r
(23) = 0.42 and 0.48 respectively, p< 0.05 and highly positive correlated with uneven
bars, balancing beam and total performance scores as r (23) = 0.56, 0.56 and 0.55
respectively, p< 0.01. The total Psychological Skills performance of the Gymnasts are
significantly positively related with the performance on floor exercise, uneven Bars,
balancing beam and overall performance on all the apparatuses at r (23) = 0.50, 0.47,
0.48, and 0.46 respectively, p< 0.05. Whereas insignificantly correlated with vault
table performance as r (23) = 0.29, p> 0.05. Moreover, the variable Motivation is not
significantly correlated with any of the variables.
211
Section IV- Effect of Relaxation Training
One of the objectives of the study was to test the effectiveness of the each training
session of Relaxation training program on the Gymnasts. The gymnasts in
experimental group were provided relaxation training using various techniques for
thirty days. Thirty sessions, altogether could not be analyzed due to the systems
limitations. Therefore, analyses was made weekly by computing the repeated measure
design for each week. To analyze each week’s relaxation training effect, the data of
every Friday was used. Pre data was collected each day before starting the training
program and post data after the training was provided, the data was collected for the
purpose of the analyses. The findings are presented from table No. 92 to table No.
160.
Effect of relaxation training was studied by employing repeated measure design.

Three parameters were recorded and evaluated i.e pulse, Respiratory rate and tension
level. Findings with regard to pulse are presented from table No. 92 to table No. 112,
results pertaining to respiratory rate are presented from table no. 113 to table no. 135
whereas results pertaining to tension level are presented from table no. 136 to table
no. 160.
212
Effect of Relaxation Training on the Pulse Rate
Table 92: Descriptive Statistics of Pulse Rate for Six weeks’ relaxation training
sessions
Groups
Pulse Mean Std. Deviation N
Pre 42.56 7.58 16

Day 1 (Pre)
Post 37.38 6.49 16
Pre 44.25 5.29 16
Week 1
Post 39.38 7.32 16
Pre 42.69 5.82 16
Week 2
Post 37.82 6.29 16
Pre 46.75 4.88 16
Week 3
Post 41.19 4.10 16
Pre 47.44 5.03 16
Week 4
Post 42.38 4.13 16
Pre 45.62 4.66 16
Week 5
Post 39.62 7.02 16
Pre 46.50 4.98 16
Week 6
Post 41.63 5.70 16
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the pulse rate before and after relaxation
training between pre and 6 weeks sessions of selected sample. The tables represents
the mean of day 1 pre pulse 42.56 (SD 7.58) and post 37.38 (SD 6.49), week 1 pre
pulse 44.25 (SD 5.29) and post 39.38 (SD 7.32), week 2 pre pulse 42.69 (SD 5.82)
and post 37.82 (SD 6.29), week 3 pre pulse 46.75 (SD 4.88) and post 41.19 (SD 4.10),
week 4 pre pulse 47.44 (SD 5.03) and post 42.38 (SD 4.13), week 5 pre pulse 45.62
(SD 4.66) and post 39.62 (SD 7.02) and week 6 pre pulse 46.50 (SD 4.98) and post
41.63 (SD 5.70).
To test the sphericity assumption Mauchly’s test was computed, the results are
213
Table 93: Mauchly’s Test
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
Subjects X² Df Sig.
W Greenhouse Huynh- Lower-
Effect -Geisser Feldt bound
Days * Pulse .12 26.64 20 .16* .64 .89 .17
*p>0.05.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Pulse does not
significantly violate the sphericity assumption because the significant value is greater
than 0.05, W= .12, X² = 26.64, p> .05, < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
Greenhouse-Geisser to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be used to
adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
Further F test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails
between the six weeks sessions and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon of
Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted.
Table 94: Summary of two way ANOVA of Pulse rate within pre and post trials
between six weeks sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Pulse * groups Geisser 8.86 6 1.47 .16 .99*
(pre & post)

Error 813.29 57.67 14.10
*p>0.05.
six weeks sessions. It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was
found in the Pulse with in pre and post trails between six weeks sessions as
Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted F (Df = 6, 90) .16, p> 0.05. It reflects that the rate of
pulse before and after training between sessions do not differ significantly.
Since, between the weeks, no significant difference was obtained, each week’s pre
and post pulse rate has been presented graphically to understand the trend of decrease
in the pulse rate. The graphical representation of data is presented in figure 28.
214
48
47
46
45
44
43
mean
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
Day 1 week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6
pre 42.56 44.25 42.69 46.75 47.44 45.62 46.5
post 37.38 39.38 37.82 41.19 42.38 39.62 41.63
Figure 28: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of Six weeks
sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post pulse rate of the gymnasts during
six weeks relaxation training. The graph clearly state that in each week the pulse rate
prior to the relaxation training is greater than the pulse rate immediately after
relaxation training, through this it can be analyzed that the relaxation training was
effective in each week to decrease the pulse rate and bring the gymnasts in much
relaxed state.
To throw more light on the trend of changes in the pulse rate, effect size [M1- M2/
(SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was calculated to understand the actual difference between the pre
and post pulse rate of the Gymnasts, Pre has moderate effect size at 0.74, week 1,
week 2, week 3, week 4, week 5 and week 6 have large effect size with 0.77, 0.80,
1.24, 1.10, 1.03 and 0.91 respectively.
To understand the actual change in the pulse rate of the gymnasts after each relaxation
training session, the repeated measure has been computed for all the five sessions
within each week, the results are presented in the tables below.
215
Table 95: Descriptive Statistics of first week relaxation training sessions over
Pulse Rate
Groups
Week 1
Day 1 Pre 42.60 6.48 20
Post 38.00 5.89 20
Day 2 Pre 41.10 5.18 20
Post 36.05 5.28 20
Day 3 Pre 42.40 10.03 20
Post 38.75 8.88 20
Day 4 Pre 46.30 7.03 20
Post 41.15 7.02 20
Day 5 Pre 43.30 7.10 20
Post 39.55 8.07 20
training between week 1 sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the mean
of day 1 pre pulse 42.60 (SD 6.48) and post 38.00 (SD 5.89), day 2 pre pulse 41.10
(SD 5.18) and post 36.05 (SD 5.28), day 3 pre pulse 42.60 (SD 6.48) and post 38.00
(SD 5.89), day 4 pre pulse 46.30 (SD 7.03) and post 41.15 (SD 7.02) and day 5 pre
pulse 43.30 (SD 7.10) and post 39.55 (SD 8.07).
Is there significant difference among the week’s scores, repeated measure was
computed and the results are presented in the table 96.
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
W Greenhouse- Lower-
Effect Huynh-Feldt
Geisser bound
Days * Pulse .57 9.80 9 .37* .80 .98 .25
*p>0.05.
than 0.05, W= .57, X² = 9.80, p> .05. And the value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we
216
have used Epsilon Huynh-Feeldt to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should
be used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
To check the difference at 0.05, F test was computed, within pre and post trails
between the sessions of first week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
of Huynh-Feldt adjusted.
between first week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Pulse * groups 20.02 4 5.01 .70 .60*
(pre & post)

Error 546.18 74.45 7.34
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Pulse with
in pre and post trails between week 1 sessions as F (Df = 4, 76) 0.70, p> 0.05. It
means the scores of pulse before and after training between sessions do not differ
significantly.
Since, between the days, no significant difference was obtained, each day’s pre and
post pulse rate has been presented graphically to understand the trend of decrease in
the pulse rate after the completion of each relaxation training session. The graphical
217
47
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
pre 42.6 41.1 42.4 46.3 43.3
post 38 36.05 38.75 43.72 39.55
Figure 29: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of first week
sessions
first week relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the pulse
prior to the relaxation training is greater than the pulse rate immediately after
effective each day to decrease the pulse rate down and bring the gymnasts in much
relaxed state.
As statistical insignificant difference was obtained but through graph the decrease in
pulse rate could be observed, so to understand the actual difference trend between the
pre and post pulse rate of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1, day 4 and day 5 have moderate effect size at 0.74, 0.73 and 0.49
respectively, while day 2 has large effect size with 0.96 and day 3 has small effect
size with 0.39.
218
Table 98: Descriptive Statistics of second week relaxation training sessions over
Pulse Rate
Groups
Week 1
Pre 43.89 6.59 20
Day 1
Post 38.37 5.51 20
Pre 43.63 4.64 20
Day 2
Post 39.36 4.57 20
Pre 44.11 4.96 20
Day 3
Post 40.32 3.62 20
Pre 42.79 6.19 20
Day 4
Post 38.58 6.06 20
Pre 43.00 5.95 20
Day 5
Post 38.05 6.19 20
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the pulse scores before and after relaxation
training between second week sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
mean of day 1 pre pulse 43.89 (SD 6.59) and post 38.37 (SD 5.51), day 2 pre pulse
43.63 (SD 4.64) and post 39.36 (SD 4.57), day 3 pre pulse 44.11 (SD 4.96) and post
40.32 (SD 3.62), day 4 pre pulse 42.79 (SD 6.19) and post 38.58 (SD 6.06) and day 5
pre pulse 43.00 (SD 5.95) and post 38.05 (SD 6.19).
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
W Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-
Effect Geisser Feldt bound
Days * Pulse .67 6.52 9 .69* .85 1.00 .25
*p>0.05.
than 0.05, W= .67, X² = 6.52, p> .05. And value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we
219
be used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Further F test was
computed to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between the
sessions of second week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon of
Huynh-Feldt adjusted.
between second week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Pulse * groups 17.93 4 4.48 1.10 .36*
(pre & post)

Error 292.67 72.00 4.06
*p>0.05.
in pre and post trails between second week sessions as F (Df= 4, 72) 1.10, p> 0.05. It
reflects that the scores of pulse before and after training between sessions do not
differ significantly. Since, between the days, no significant difference was obtained,
each day’s pre and post pulse rate has been presented graphically in figure 30 to
understand the trend of decrease in the pulse rate after the completion of each
relaxation training session.
47
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
pre 43.89 43.63 44.11 42.79 43
post 38.37 39.36 40.32 38.58 38.05
Figure 30: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of second week
sessions
220
second week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the
pulse prior to the relaxation training is greater than the pulse rate immediately after
effective each day to drop the pulse rate down and bring the gymnasts in much
relaxed state.
pulse rate could be observed, so to understand the actual difference trend between the
pre and post pulse rate of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 and Day 5 have large effect size with 0.91, 0.93, 0.88
and 0.81 respectively while Day 4 has a moderate effect size with 0.69.
Table 101: Descriptive Statistics of third week relaxation training sessions over
Pulse Rate
Groups
Week 1
Pre 41.10 9.23 20
Day 1
Post 36.55 9.09 20
Pre 44.20 7.13 20
Day 2
Post 38.95 7.21 20
Pre 44.85 7.53 20
Day 3
Post 38.75 6.05 20
Pre 45.00 4.88 20
Day 4
Post 39.95 4.49 20
Pre 45.75 5.10 20
Day 5
Post 40.05 5.71 20
221
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
Days * Pulse .52 11.46 9 .25* .77 .93 .25
*p>0.05.
between the sessions of third week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
of Huynh-Feldt adjusted.
between third week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Pulse * groups 17.93 4 4.48 1.10 .36*
(pre & post)

Error 360.17 70.88 5.08
*p>0.05.
in pre and post trails between third week sessions as F (Df= 4, 72) 1.10, p> 0.05. It
reflects that the pulse rate before and after training between sessions do not differ
significantly.
222
post pulse rate has been presented graphically to understand the trend of decrease in
the pulse rate after the completion of each relaxation training session. The graphical
47
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
pre 41.1 44.2 44.85 45 45.75
post 36.55 38.95 38.75 39.95 40.05
Figure 31: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of Third week
sessions
third week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the
relaxed state. To understand the actual difference between the pre and post pulse rate
of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was calculated, Day 1 and
Day 2 have moderate effect size with 0.50 and 0.73 where as day 3, day 4 and day 5
have large effect size with 0.90, 1.08 and 1.05 respectively.
223
Table 104: Descriptive Statistics of Fourth week relaxation training sessions over
Pulse Rate
Groups
Week 1
Pre 45.00 6.62 19
Day 1
Post 39.42 6.31 19
Pre 43.37 6.87 19
Day 2
Post 38.79 6.21 19
Pre 44.16 4.84 19
Day 3
Post 39.10 6.82 19
Pre 43.53 7.30 19
Day 4
Post 39.84 5.95 19
Pre 45.21 4.10 19
Day 5
Post 40.37 4.96 19
training between fourth week sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
Mauchly’s Test repeated measure was computed to check if there is significant

difference among the week’s scores and the results are presented in the table below.
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
W Greenhous Huynh- Lower-
Effect e-Geisser Feldt bound
Days * Pulse .65 7.20 9 .62* .87 1.00 .25
*p>0.05.
224
between the sessions of fourth week and the f was computed by considering the
Epsilon of Huynh-Feldt adjusted.
between fourth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Pulse * groups 18.55 4 4.64 .74 .57
(pre & post)

Error 449.85 72.00 6.25
*p>0.05.
in pre and post trails between week 4 sessions as F (Df= 4, 72) .74, p> 0.05. It
differ significantly.
post pulse rate has been presented graphically in figure 32 to understand the trend of
decrease in the pulse rate after the completion of each relaxation training session.
225
47
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
pre 45 43.37 44.16 43.53 45.21
post 39.42 38.79 39.1 39.84 40.37
Figure 32: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of Fourth week
sessions
fourth week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the
relaxed state.
As, statistical insignificant difference was obtained but through graph the decrease in
pulse rate could be observed, to understand the actual difference between the pre and
post pulse rate of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1, Day 3 and Day 5 have large effect size at 0.86, 0.87 and 1.07
respectively, while day 2 and day 4 have moderate effect size with 0.70 and 0.56
respectively.
226
Table 107: Descriptive Statistics of Fifth week relaxation training sessions over
Pulse Rate
Groups
Week 1
Pre 44.00 4.41 20
Day 1
Post 38.70 4.35 20
Pre 43.05 4.02 20
Day 2
Post 37.80 4.20 20
Pre 42.20 6.27 20
Day 3
Post 36.05 7.64 20
Pre 43.40 5.21 20
Day 4
Post 37.65 6.32 20
Pre 44.45 4.92 20
Day 5
Post 39.35 6.44 20
training between fifth week sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
computed and the results are presented in the table below.
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
Days * Pulse .37 17.32 9 .04* .71 .84 .25
*p<0.05.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Pulse significantly
violate the sphericity assumption because the significant value is less than 0.05, W=
227
.37, X² = 17.32, p<.05. But Greenhouse-Geisser is less than 0.75. Therefore, the f
value, for the main effect of treatment does not need to be corrected for violations of
sphericity, Girden, E. R. (1992).
between the sessions of fifth week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
of Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted.
between five week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Pulse * groups Geisser 7.47 2.83 2.64 .24 .86*
(pre & post)

Error 590.13 53.78 10.97
*p>0.05.
in pre and post trails between fifth week sessions as F (Df= 2.83, 76) .24, p> 0.05. It
228
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
pre 44 43.05 42.2 43.4 44.45
post 38.7 37.8 36.05 37.65 39.35
Figure 33: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of Fifth week
sessions
fifth week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the
relaxed state.
To throw more light on the trend of changes in the pulse rate, effect size [M1- M2/
(SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was calculated to understand the actual difference between the pre
and post pulse rate each day of the Gymnasts, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and Day 5
have large effect size with 1.21, 1.28, 0.88, 0.99 and 0.90 respectively.
229
Table 110: Descriptive Statistics of Sixth week relaxation training sessions -Pulse
Groups
Week 1
Pre 44.31 6.33 22
Day 1
Post 38.45 6.70 22
Pre 42.36 9.31 22
Day 2
Post 37.77 9.02 22
Pre 41.64 8.78 22
Day 3
Post 36.14 7.83 22
Pre 45.77 5.01 22
Day 4
Post 39.73 5.37 22
Pre 46.05 5.29 22
Day 5
Post 40.95 5.74 22
To check if there is any significant difference among the week’s scores, repeated
measure was computed and the results are presented in the table below.
Table 111: Mauchl’s Test
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
Days * Pulse .47 14.58 9 .10* .73 .85 .25
*p>0.05.
than 0.05, W= .47, X² = 14.58, p> .05. < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
230

between the sessions of sixth week and the f was computed by considering the
Epsilon of Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted.
between sixth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Pulse * groups Geisser 15.29 4 3.82 .71 .59*
(pre & post)

Error 452.71 60.98 7.42
*p>0.05.
in pre and post trails between week 6 sessions as F (Df = 4, 84) .71, p> 0.05. It
231
46
45
44
43
42
mean
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
pre 44 43.05 42.2 43.4 44.45
post 38.7 37.8 36.05 37.65 39.35
Figure 34: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Pulse means of Sixth week
sessions
sixth week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day the
relaxed state.
pulse rate could be observed, to understand the actual difference between the pre and
post pulse rate of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1, Day 4 and Day 5 have large effect size at 0.90, 1.16 and 0.92
respectively while day 2 and day 3 have moderate effect size with 0.50 and 0.66
respectively.
232
Effect of Relaxation Training on the Respiratory Rate of the Gymnasts
To assess the effectiveness of each relaxation session on the respiration rate of the
gymnasts, subjects respiratory rate before and after each relaxation session was
recorded and analyzed. The results are presented in the given tables below.
Table 113: Descriptive Statistics of Respiratory rate Six weeks relaxation

training sessions
Groups Respiratory
Mean Std. Deviation N
rate
Pre 20.37 4.57 16
Day 1
Post 17.37 4.76 16
Pre 18.12 4.06 16
Week 1
Post 16.25 3.36 16
Pre 18.94 4.58 16
Week 2
Post 16.00 2.97 16
Pre 19.69 3.70 16
Week 3
Post 16.00 4.00 16
Pre 18.44 3.10 16
Week 4
Post 15.12 2.19 16
Pre 19.19 2.59 16
Week 5
Post 15.56 2.97 16
Pre 18.56 3.71 16
Week 6
Post 14.56 2.06 16
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the respiratory rate scores before and after
relaxation training between pre and 6 weeks sessions of selected sample. The tables
represents the mean of day 1 pre respiratory rate 20.37 (SD 4.57) and post 17.37 (SD
4.76), week 1 pre respiratory rate 18.12 (SD 4.06) and post 16.25 (SD 3.36), week 2
pre respiratory rate 18.94 (SD 4.58) and post 16.00 (SD 2.97), week 3 pre respiratory
rate 19.69 (SD 3.70) and post 16.00 (SD 4.00), week 4 pre respiratory rate 18.44 (SD
3.10) and post 15.12 (SD 2.19), week 5 pre respiratory rate 19.19 (SD 2.59) and post
15.56 (SD 2.97) and week 6 pre respiratory rate 18.56 (SD 3.71) and post 14.56 (SD
2.06) high mean effect size 1.39.
233
Is there significant difference among the six weeks scores, repeated measure was
Within Mauchly's Epsilon

X² Df Sig.
Subjects Effect W Greenhous Huynh- Lower-
e-Geisser Feldt bound
Days *
.14 25.02 20 .21* .62 .84 .17
Respiratory rate
*p>0.05.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Respiratory Rate does
not significantly violate the sphericity assumption because the significant value is
greater than 0.05, W= .14, X² = 25.02, p> .05. < .75, therefore, we have used
Epsilon Greenhouse-Geisser to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be
used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
between the sessions of six weeks and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
Table 115: Summary of two way ANOVA of Respiratory rate within pre and
post trials between six weeks sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate 23.48 6 3.91 1.68 .14*
Geisser
* groups
(pre & post) Error 209.52 55.50 3.77
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between six weeks sessions as F (Df = 6,
90) 1.68, p> 0.05. It reflects that the scores of respiratory rate before and after
training between sessions do not differ significantly.
234
post respiratory rate has been presented graphically in figure 35 to understand the
trend of decrease in the respiratory rate after the completion of each relaxation
training session.
21
20
19
18
mean
17
16
15
14
Day 1 week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6
pre 20.37 18.12 18.94 19.69 18.44 19.19 18.56
post 17.37 16.25 16 16 15.12 15.56 14.56
Figure 35: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Respiratory rate means of
Six weeks sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post respiration rate of the gymnasts
during six week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each week, the
respiration prior to the relaxation training is greater than the respiration rate
immediately after relaxation training, through this it can be analyzed that the
relaxation training was effective each week to drop down the respiration rate and
bring the gymnasts in much relaxed state.
respiratory rate could be observed, to understand the actual difference between the pre
and post respiratory rate of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, pre, week 1 and week 2 have moderate effect size at 0.64, 0.50, 0.78
respectively with large mean effect size in week 3, week 4, week 5 and week 6 with
effect size 0.96, 1.25, 1.31 and 1.39 respectively.
235
Table 116: Descriptive Statistics of first week relaxation training sessions -

Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory
Week 1 rate
Day 1 Pre 21.20 4.79 20
Post 18.30 4.49 20
Day 2 Pre 20.55 3.63 20
Post 18.25 3.29 20
Day 3 Pre 20.55 5.10 20
Post 18.35 4.56 20
Day 4 Pre 19.90 4.47 20
Post 17.20 3.44 20
Day 5 Pre 19.05 4.09 20
Post 17.10 3.27 20
relaxation training between first week sessions of selected sample. The tables
4.49), day 2 pre respiratory rate 20.55 (SD 3.63) and post 18.25 (SD 3.29), day 3 pre
respiratory rate 20.55 (SD 5.10) and post 18.35 (SD 4.56), day 4 pre respiratory rate
19.90 (SD 4.47) and post 17.20 (SD 3.44) and day 5 pre respiratory rate 19.05 (SD
4.09) and post 17.10 (SD 3.27). Is there significant difference among the week’s
scores, repeated measure was computed and the results are presented in the table
below.
Mauchly's Epsilon
Within Subjects Effect X² Df Sig.
-Geisser Feldt bound
Days * Respiratory rate .25 24.12 9 .00* .66 .77 .25
* p< 0.01.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Respiratory Rate
significantly violate the sphericity assumption because the significant value is less
236
than 0.05, W= .25, X² = 24.12, p< .05. But Greenhouse-Geisser is less than 0.75.
Therefore, the f value, for the main effect of treatment does not need to be corrected
for violations of sphericity recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
between the sessions of first week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
post trials between first week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate 5.92 2.6 2.25 .74 .52*
Geisser
* groups
(pre & post) Error 152.88 49.91 3.06
*p>0.05.
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between week 1 sessions as F (Df = 2.6,
76) 0.74, p> 0.05. It means the scores of respiratory rate before and after training
between sessions do not differ significantly.
training session.
237
22
21.5
21
20.5
20
19.5
mean
19
18.5
18
17.5
17
16.5
16
pre 21.2 20.55 20.55 19.9 19.05
post 18.3 18.25 18.35 17.2 17.1
first week sessions
during first week’s relaxation training sessions. The graph clearly state that each day,
the respiration prior to the relaxation training is greater than the respiration rate
relaxation training was effective each day to drop down the respiration rate and bring
the gymnasts in much relaxed state.
calculated, Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4 and Day 5 have moderate effect size at 0.63,
238
Table 119: Descriptive Statistics of second week’s relaxation training sessions

over Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory Mean Std. Deviation N

Week 1 rate
Pre 17.89 4.08 19
Day 1
Post 15.74 3.65 19
Pre 19.36 4.21 19
Day 2
Post 15.68 3.76 19
Pre 19.05 3.70 19
Day 3
Post 16.42 3.93 19
Pre 19.89 5.37 19
Day 4
Post 16.47 3.80 19
Pre 19.37 4.68 19
Day 5
Post 16.42 3.58 19
relaxation training between second week sessions of selected sample. The tables
4.68) and post 16.42 (SD 3.58).
Mauchly's Epsilon
*p>0.05.
239
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Respiratory does not
violate significantly the sphericity assumption because the significant value is greater
between the sessions of second week and the f was computed by considering the
post trials between second week’s sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate 14.14 4 3.53 2.75 .03*
Geisser
* groups
(pre & post) Error 92.46 51.24 1.80
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Respiratory
rate with in pre and post trails between the sessions of second week as F (Df= 4, 72)
2.75, p< 0.05. It reflects that the scores of respiratory rate before and after training
between sessions differ significantly.

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training.
240
Table 122: Pairwise Comparisons pre and post respiration among different
sessions of relaxation in second week

Bound Bound
Pre Day 1 Day 2 -1.00 1.22 .41* -3.41 1.40
Day 3 -.95 1.20 .43* -3.32 1.42
Day 4 -2.16 1.21 .08* -4.55 .23
Day 5 -1.27 1.22 .30* -3.68 1.13
Day 2 Day 3 .05 1.15 .96* -2.21 2.31
Day 4 -1.16 1.16 .32* -3.44 1.12
Day 5 -.27 1.17 .82* -2.57 2.03
Day 3 Day 4 -1.21 1.14 .29* -3.45 1.03
Day 5 -.32 1.15 .78* -2.58 1.94
Day 4 Day 5 .89 1.16 .45* -1.39 3.17
Post Day 1 Day 2 .30 1.22 .80* -2.10 2.71

Day 3 -.56 1.20 .64* -2.93 1.81
Day 4 -.70 1.21 .57* -3.08 1.69
Day 5 -.66 1.22 .59* -3.06 1.75
Day 2 Day 3 -.86 1.15 .45* -3.12 1.40
Day 4 -1.00 1.16 .39* -3.29 1.28
Day 5 -.96 1.17 .41* -3.26 1.34
Day 3 Day 4 -.14 1.14 .90* -2.38 2.10
Day 5 -.10 1.15 .93* -2.36 2.16
Day 4 Day 5 .04 1.16 .97* -2.24 2.32
*p>0.05.
The table reveals that the pre trials are similar as no significant difference was found
among the different sessions in third week (p> 0.05). Even the difference between the
post trials of the different sessions was found insignificant with p> 0.05 indicating
that the performance of the pre trials is statistically higher than the post trials.
The adjusted p-value for the comparisons of different sessions (each for pre and post
performance) is .05/1.67 = 0.03. By this criterion, there is no significant difference in
pre and post respiration between different sessions.
241
To check the difference between pre and post trials of the experimental and controlled
groups separately, further calculations were done, the results are presented below.
Table 123: Pairwise Comparisons among different sessions for the pre and post
relaxation performance- Respiration

MD Std.
Groups Respiratory Respiratory Sig. For Difference
Rate Rate
Bound Bound
Day 1 Pre Post 2.50 1.27 .05* -.01 5.01
*
Day 2 Pre Post 3.81 1.17 .00** 1.50 6.11
*
Day 3 Pre Post 2.89 1.12 .01** .67 5.11
Day 4 Pre Post 3.96* 1.15 .00** 1.70 6.22
*
Day 5 Pre Post 3.12 1.17 .01** .81 5.42
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
A significant difference could be noticed in the pre and post performance of

Relaxation level within the different sessions in third week as p< 0.01.
Each day’s pre and post respiratory rate has been presented graphically in figure 37 to
understand the trend of decrease in the respiratory rate after the completion of each
relaxation training session during second week.
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
mean
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
pre 17.89 19.36 19.05 19.89 19.37
post 15.74 15.68 16.42 16.47 16.42
second week sessions
242
during second week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
Table 124: Descriptive Statistics of third week relaxation training sessions over
Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory Mean Std. Deviation N

Week 1 rate
Pre 18.90 5.89 20
Day 1
Post 15.20 3.64 20
Pre 20.30 4.99 20
Day 2
Post 16.05 3.25 20
Pre 18.85 2.72 20
Day 3
Post 15.30 2.75 20
Pre 20.15 5.32 20
Day 4
Post 16.00 4.34 20
Pre 20.55 4.15 20
Day 5
Post 16.00 3.48 20
relaxation training between third week sessions of selected sample. The tables
4.15) and post 16.00 (SD 3.48). Is there significant difference among the week’s
scores, repeated measure was computed and the results are presented in the table
below.
243
Within Mauchly's
Epsilon
X² Df Sig.
Subjects Effect W Greenhouse Huynh- Lower-
Days *
.48 12.91 9 .17* .74 .89 .25
Respiratory rate
*p>0.05.
not violate significantly the sphericity assumption because the significant value is
greater than 0.05, W= .48, X² = 12.91, p> .05. < .75, Therefore, we have used
between the sessions of third week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
post trials between third week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate Geisser 6.72 4 1.68 .39 .81*
* groups
(pre & post) Error 323.28 56.01 5.77
*p>0.05.
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between third week sessions as F (Df= 4,
76) .39, p> 0.05. It reflects that the scores of respiratory rate before and after training
training session.
244
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
mean
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
pre 18.9 20.3 18.85 20.15 20.55
post 15.2 16.05 15.3 16 16
Third week sessions
during third week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
relaxation training was effective each day to bring down the respiration rate and
helped the gymnasts to feel relaxed.
calculated, Day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 and Day 5 have large effect size with 0.78,
245
Table 127: Descriptive Statistics of Fourth week relaxation training sessions over
Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory
Week 1 rate
Pre 20.73 4.23 19
Day 1
Post 17.05 3.55 19
Pre 19.68 3.42 19
Day 2
Post 16.00 2.75 19
Pre 18.15 2.83 19
Day 3
Post 15.47 2.55 19
Pre 18.53 3.03 19
Day 4
Post 15.68 3.30 19
Pre 18.26 2.21 19
Day 5
Post 15.16 1.89 19
relaxation training between fourth week sessions of selected sample. The tables
2.21) and post 15.16 (SD 1.89).

X² Df Sig.
Days *
.32 18.63 9 .03* .68 .81 .25
Respiratory rate
*p<0.05.
246
than 0.05, W= .32, X² = 18.63, p< .05. But Greenhouse-Geisser is less than .75.
for violations of sphericity, recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
between the sessions of fourth week and the f was computed by considering the
post trials between fourth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate 8.28 2.71 3.05 1.28 .29*
Geisser
* groups
(pre & post) Error 116.72 48.86 2.39
*p>0.05.
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between fourth week sessions as f (Df=
2.71, 72) 1.28, p> 0.05. It reflects that the scores of respiratory rate before and after
training session.
247
21
20.5
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
mean
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
pre 20.73 19.68 18.15 18.53 18.26
post 17.05 16 15.47 15.68 15.16
Fourth week sessions
during fourth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
calculated, Day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5 have large effect size with 0.95, 1.19,
0.99, 0.90 and 1.51 respectively.
248
Table 130: Descriptive Statistics of Fifth week’s relaxation training sessions -

Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory
Week 1 rate
Pre 19.15 3.76 20
Day 1
Post 16.80 4.51 20
Pre 19.65 3.94 20
Day 2
Post 16.45 2.61 20
Pre 19.30 3.77 20
Day 3
Post 15.95 3.57 20
Pre 19.05 2.89 20
Day 4
Post 15.95 2.58 20
Pre 20.00 3.81 20
Day 5
Post 16.40 3.68 20
relaxation training between fifth week sessions of selected sample. The tables
3.81) and post 16.40 (SD 3.68).
Mauchly's Epsilon
W Greenhouse- Huynh Lower-
Geisser -Feldt bound
*p>0.05.
249
not significantly violate the sphericity assumption because the significant value is
between the sessions of fifth week and the f was computed by considering the Epsilon
post trials between fifth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate Geisser 8.83 4 2.21 1.18 .33*
* groups
(pre & post) Error 141.97 54.00 2.63
*p>0.05.
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between fifth week sessions as F (Df= 4,
training session.
250
21
20
19
mean
18
17
16
15
pre 19.15 19.65 19.3 19.05 20
post 16.8 16.45 15.95 15.95 16.4
Fifth week sessions
during fifth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
calculated, Day 1 has moderate effect size at 0.57 and day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5
have large effect size with 0.97, 0.91, 1.13 and 0.96 respectively.
251
Table 133: Descriptive Statistics of Sixth week Relaxation training sessions over
Respiratory rate
Groups Respiratory
Week 1 rate
Pre 19.59 4.45 22
Day 1
Post 16.04 3.97 22
Pre 18.72 5.03 22
Day 2
Post 15.91 3.98 22
Pre 18.91 4.15 22
Day 3
Post 16.50 3.81 22
Pre 19.95 4.37 22
Day 4
Post 16.27 3.63 22
Pre 19.09 4.02 22
Day 5
Post 15.27 3.21 22
relaxation training between fifth week sessions of selected sample. The tables
4.02) and post 15.27 (SD 3.21).
Within Subjects Mauchly's Epsilon

X² Df Sig.
Effect W Greenhouse Huynh- Lower-
Days * Respiratory
.42 16.90 9 .05* .73 .86 .25
rate
*p=0.05.
252
than 0.05, W= .42, X² = 16.90, p = .05. But Greenhouse- Geisser is less than 0.75.
for violations of sphericity.
between the sessions of sixth week and the f was computed by considering the
post trials between sixth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Respiratory rate 16.39 2.92 5.61 1.76 .17*
Geisser
* groups
(pre & post) Error 195.41 61.37 3.18
*p>0.05.
Respiratory rate with in pre and post trails between sixth week sessions as F (Df = 4,
training session.
253
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
mean
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
pre 19.59 18.72 18.91 19.95 19.09
post 16.04 15.91 16.5 16.27 15.27
Sixth week sessions
during sixth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
calculated, Day 2 and Day 3 have moderate effect size with 0.62 and 0.60
respectively, while day 1, day 4 and day 5 have large effect size with 0.84, 0.92 and
1.05 respectively.
Effect of Relaxation Training on the Tension Level of the Gymnasts
The scholar had also recorded the level of tension before and after imparting each
relaxation training session, to understand how tense subjects were before following
the training sessions and how calm they felt after each session. The subjects state of
254
tense and calmness was measured in 1 to 8 scale where 1 is indicating calmness and
the 8 is indicating tension. Findings are presented from the table No. 136 to No. 160.
Table 136: Descriptive Statistics of Tense Six weeks relaxation training sessions
Groups Tense Mean Std. Deviation N
Day 1 Pre 4.31 1.89 16
Post 2.56 1.50 16
Week 1 Pre 3.93 1.73 16
Post 2.12 1.14 16
Week 2 Pre 4.37 1.63 16
Post 2.31 1.19 16
Week 3 Pre 4.62 2.12 16
Post 2.69 2.12 16
Week 4 Pre 4.12 1.75 16
Post 2.00 1.15 16
Week 5 Pre 3.93 1.61 16
Post 2.06 1.39 16
Week 6 Pre 4.31 1.54 16
Post 2.12 1.20 16
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the tense scores before and after relaxation
training between pre and 6 weeks sessions of selected sample. The tables represents
the mean of day 1 pre tense 4.31 (SD 1.89) and post 2.56 (SD 1.50), week 1 pre tense
3.93 (SD 1.73) and post 2.12 (SD 1.14), week 2 pre tense 4.37 (SD 1.63) and post
2.31 (SD 1.19), week 3 pre tense 4.62 (SD 3.70) and post 2.69 (SD 2.12), week 4 pre
tense 4.12 (SD 1.75) and post 2.00 (SD 1.15), week 5 pre tense 3.93 (SD 1.61) and
post 2.06 (SD 1.39) and week 6 pre tense 4.31 (SD 1.54) and post 2.12 (SD 1.20).
Test of Mauchly’s was computed to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post
trails between six week’s sessions.
255
Mauchly's Epsilon
Within
X² Df Sig.
.03 44.59 20 .00* .48 .61 .17
Days * Tense
*p<0.01.
than 0.01, W= .03, X² = 44.59, p < .01. But Greenhouse-Geisser is less than 0.75.
for violations of sphericity.
Further F test was computed by considering the Epsilon of Greenhouse-Geisser

adjusted
to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between the sessions of six
weeks.
Table 138: Summary of two way ANOVA of Tense rate within pre and post trials
between six weeks sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Tense * groups Geisser 1.30 2.89 .45 .35 .78*
(pre & post)
Error 55.55 43.29 1.28
*p>0.05.
six weeks sessions. An insignificant difference was found in the Tense with in pre and
post trails between six weeks sessions as F (Df = 2.89, 90) .35, p> 0.05. It reflects
that the scores of tense before and after training between sessions do not differ
significantly.
post tension level has been presented graphically in figure 42 to understand the trend
256
of decrease in the tension level after the completion of each relaxation training
session.
5
4.5
4
3.5
mean
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
week week week week week week
Day 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
pre 4.31 3.93 4.37 4.62 4.12 3.93 4.31
post 2.56 2.12 2.31 2.69 2 2.06 2.12
Figure 42: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of Six weeks
sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post tension rate of the gymnasts
during six week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that in each week, the
tension level prior to the relaxation training is greater than the tension level
relaxation training was effective each day of every week to reduce the tension level of
the gymnasts and bring them in a more calm state.
tension level could be observed, to understand the actual difference between the pre
and post tension level of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1 (pre), week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, week 5 and week 6 have
large effect size with 1.03, 1.26, 1.46, 0.91, 1.46, 1.25 and 1.60 respectively.
257
Table 139: Descriptive Statistics of first week’s relaxation training sessions -

Tense

Week 1
Day 1 Pre 4.25 1.71 20
Post 2.60 1.35 20
Day 2 Pre 4.10 1.25 20
Post 2.55 .94 20
Day 3 Pre 4.10 1.83 20
Post 2.65 1.75 20
Day 4 Pre 3.80 1.47 20
Post 2.35 1.22 20
Day 5 Pre 4.10 1.68 20
Post 2.30 1.17 20
training between first week’s sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
mean of day 1 pre tense 4.25 (SD 1.71) and post 2.60 (SD 1.35), day 2 pre tense 4.10
(SD 1.25) and post 2.55 (SD .94), day 3 pre tense 4.10 (SD 1.83) and post 2.65 (SD
1.75), day 4 pre tense 3.80 (SD 1.47) and post 2.35 (SD 1.22) and day 5 pre tense 4.10
(SD 1.68) and post 2.30 (SD 1.17).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant difference among the first
week’s sessions scores, and the results are presented in the table below.
Mauchly's Epsilon
Geisser Feldt bound
.59 9.31 9 .41* .81 1.00 .25
Days * Tense
*p>0.05.
258
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * Tension level does not
than 0.05, W= .59, X² = 9.31, p> .05, and the value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we
Further F test was computed by considering the Epsilon of Huynh-Feldt adjusted to

check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between the sessions of first
week.
between first week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Tense * groups .88 4 .22 .87 .48*
(pre & post)
Error 19.12 76.00 .25
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Tension
with in pre and post trails between first week’s sessions as F (Df = 4, 76) 0.87, p>
0.05. It means the scores of tense before and after training between sessions do not
Since, between the days, insignificant difference was obtained, each day’s pre and
post tension level has been presented graphically to understand the trend of decrease
in the tension level after the completion of each relaxation training session.
259
5
4.5
4
mean
3.5
3
2.5
2
pre 4.25 4.1 4.1 3.8 4.1
post 2.6 2.55 2.65 2.35 2.3
Figure 43: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of first week
sessions
during first week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
relaxation training was effective each day of first week to reduce the tension level of
the gymnasts and bring them in a relaxed state. To understand the actual difference
between the pre and post tension level of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 +
SD2/ 2)] was calculated, Day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5 have large effect size
with 1.07, 1.42, 0.81, 1.07 and 1.24 respectively.
260
Table 142: Tension’s Descriptive Statistics of second week’s relaxation training

sessions

Week 1
Day 1 Pre 4.42 1.80 19
Post 2.05 1.02 19
Day 2 Pre 4.42 1.61 19
Post 2.47 1.02 19
Day 3 Pre 4.63 1.26 19
Post 2.68 1.16 19
Day 4 Pre 4.36 1.42 19
Post 2.21 .85 19
Day 5 Pre 4.31 1.53 19
Post 2.26 1.15 19
training between first week sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
(SD 1.61) and post 2.47 (SD 1.02), day 3 pre tense 4.63 (SD 1.26) and post 2.68 (SD
1.16), day 4 pre tense 4.36 (SD 1.42) and post 2.21 (SD .85) and day 5 pre tense 4.31
(SD 1.53) and post 2.26 (SD 1.15).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant difference among the week’s
scores, and the results are presented in the table below.

X² Df Sig.
.26 21.90 9 .01* .64 .76 .25
Days * Tense
* p< 0.05.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test for interaction of Days * tension level,
261
than 0.05, W= .26, X² = 21.90, p<0.05. But Greenhouse-Geisser is less than 0.75,
Therefore, we have used Epsilon Greenhouse-Geisser to adjust f score and the
conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R.
(1992).

adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails during the sessions
of six weeks.
between second week’s sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Tense * groups 1.18 2.58 .46 .87 .45*
Geisser
(pre & post)
Error 24.42 46.38 .53
*p>0.05.
The table shows an insignificant difference was found in the Tense with in pre and
post trails between second week’s sessions as Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted F (Df= 4,
72) .87, p> 0.05. It reflects that the scores of tension before and after training
262
5
4.5
4
3.5
mean
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
pre 4.42 4.42 4.63 4.36 4.31
post 2.05 2.47 2.68 2.21 2.26
Figure 44: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of second week
sessions
during second week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
relaxation training was effective each day of second week sessions to reduce the
tension level of the gymnasts and bring them in a relaxed state.
tension level could be observed, to understand the actual difference between the pre
and post tension level of the Gymnasts, effect size [M1- M2/ (SD1 + SD2/ 2)] was
calculated, Day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5 have large effect size with 1.68, 1.49,
1.61, 1.86 and 1.53 respectively.
263
Table 145: Descriptive Statistics of third week’s relaxation training sessions -

Tense

Week 1
Day 1 Pre 3.89 1.41 19
Post 2.15 1.12 19
Day 2 Pre 3.58 1.71 19
Post 1.95 1.13 19
Day 3 Pre 4.52 1.61 19
Post 2.31 1.29 19
Day 4 Pre 4.26 1.45 19
Post 2.21 .91 19
Day 5 Pre 4.37 1.92 19
Post 2.31 1.29 19
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the tension scores, recorded by the gymnasts,
each day before and after relaxation training between third week’s sessions. The
tables represents the mean of day 1 pre tense 3.89 (SD 1.41) and post 2.15 (SD 1.12),
day 2 pre tense 3.58 (SD 1.71) and post 1.95 (SD 1.13), day 3 pre tense 4.52 (SD
1.61) and post 2.31 (SD 1.29), day 4 pre tense 4.26 (SD 1.45) and post 2.21 (SD .91)
and day 5 pre tense 4.37 (SD 1.92) and post 2.31 (SD 1.29). Test of sphericity was
computed to test the significant difference among the week’s scores, and the results
are presented in the table below.
Within
Mauchly's Epsilon
Effect Geisser Feldt bound
.41 14.77 9 .10* .71 .86 .25
Days * Tense
*p>0.05.
than 0.05, W= .41, X² = 14.77, p > 0.05. < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
264


adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails during third week
sessions.
between third week’s sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Tense * groups 2.23 4 .56 2.83 .03*
Geisser
(pre & post)
Error 14.17 51.14 .28
*p<0.05.
Table shows a significant difference in the Tension level with in pre and post trails
between third week’s sessions as F (Df= 4, 76) 2.83, p< 0.05. It reflects that the
scores of tension before and after training between sessions differ significantly.

computed to test the interaction effect of trials with groups of training. The results are
265
Table 148: Pairwise Comparisons of the Tension scores among different sessions
of relaxation in third week for pre and post scores

Performance Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre Day 1 Day 2 -.54 .48 .26* -1.49 .41
Day 3 -.58 .50 .25* -1.56 .40
Day 4 -.22 .47 .64* -1.15 .71
Day 5 -.32 .48 .51* -1.26 .62
Day 2 Day 3 -.04 .49 .94* -1.02 .94
Day 4 .32 .47 .50* -.61 1.25
Day 5 .22 .48 .64* -.72 1.16
Day 3 Day 4 .36 .49 .46* -.60 1.32
Day 5 .26 .49 .60* -.71 1.23
Day 4 Day 5 -.10 .47 .83* -1.02 .82
Post Day 1 Day 2 -.50 .48 .30* -1.45 .45

Day 3 -.43 .50 .39* -1.41 .55
Day 4 -.17 .47 .72* -1.10 .76
Day 5 -.31 .48 .52* -1.25 .63
Day 2 Day 3 .07 .50 .88* -.91 1.05
Day 4 .33 .47 .49* -.60 1.26
Day 5 .19 .48 .69* -.75 1.13
Day 3 Day 4 .26 .49 .60* -.70 1.22
Day 5 .12 .49 .81* -.85 1.09
Day 4 Day 5 -.14 .47 .77* -1.06 .78
*p>0.05.
The table reveals that the pre trials are similar as no significant difference was found
among the different sessions in third week (p > 0.05). Even the difference between the
post trials of the different sessions was found insignificant with p > 0.05 indicating
statistically insignificant difference between the means.
performance) is .05/1.67 = 0.03, Alan Taylor, (2011). By this criterion, there is no
significant difference in pre and post tension level between different sessions.
266
Indicating that over the days effect of training was not carried forward, this could be
due to the fact that each day brings different problems and pattern of stumbles in life
and hence affect the subject’s tension level.
However to test effectiveness of each session, further calculations were done, the
following table 149 shows the difference between the pre and post tension level of the
Gymnasts within a day following relaxation training.
Table 149: Tension’s Pairwise Comparisons between pre and post relaxation
performance within the different sessions of third week

MD Std. For Difference
Groups Tension Tension Sig.
Level Level
Bound Bound
Day 1 Pre Post 1.81* .48 .00* .86 2.76
Day 2 Pre Post 1.85* .48 .00* .90 2.79
*
Day 3 Pre Post 1.96 .51 .00* .95 2.96
Day 4 Pre Post 1.86* .46 .00* .94 2.77
*
Day 5 Pre Post 1.82 .47 .00* .88 2.74
*p< 0.01
A significant difference has been noticed in the pre and post tension level following
the Relaxation training, within the different sessions of third week at p < 0.01. Based
on the results it is possible to conclude that the relaxation training was effective to
bring the Gymnasts in a calm state. The graphical representation of the pre and post
tension level following the relaxation sessions is presented in the figure below.
267
5
4.5
4
3.5
mean
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
pre 3.89 3.58 4.52 4.26 4.37
post 2.15 1.95 2.31 2.21 2.31
Figure 45: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of Third week
sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post tension level of the gymnasts
during third week’s relaxation sessions. The graph clearly state that each day, the
tension level prior to the relaxation training is greater than the tension level followed
by relaxation session, through this it can be analyzed that the relaxation training was
effective each day of third week to reduce the tension level of the gymnasts and bring
them in a relaxed state.
Table 150: Tension’s Descriptive Statistics of Fourth week Relaxation Training

Sessions
Groups Std.
Tense Mean N
Week 1 Deviation
Day 1 Pre 3.89 1.41 19
Post 2.15 1.12 19
Day 2 Pre 3.58 1.71 19
Post 1.95 1.13 19
Day 3 Pre 4.53 1.61 19
Post 2.32 1.29 19
Day 4 Pre 4.26 1.45 19
Post 2.21 .92 19
Day 5 Pre 4.36 1.92 19
Post 2.32 1.29 19
268
Table reveals the descriptive analysis of the tense scores between before and after
relaxation training of the week 4 sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
(SD 1.71) and post 1.95 (SD 1.13), day 3 pre tense 4.53 (SD 1.61) and post 2.32 (SD
(SD 1.92) and post 2.32 (SD 1.29).
To test if there is a significant difference among the pre and post tension level during
the fourth week’s scores, repeated measure was computed and the results are
presented in the table below.

X² Df Sig.
.42 14.77 9 .10* .71 .86 .25
Days * Tense
*p>0.05.

adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post tension level of the
gymnasts between the sessions of fourth week.
between fourth week’s sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Tense * groups Geisser 2.23 4 .56 2.83 .03*
(pre & post)
Error 14.17 51.14 .28
*p<0.05.
269
It is evident from the table that a significant difference was found in the Tension level
with in pre and post trails between fourth week’s sessions as F (Df= 4, 72) 2.83, p<
0.05. It reflects that the scores of tense before and after training between sessions

computed to test the interaction effect of sessions with groups of training.
Table 153: Pairwise Comparisons of the Tension among different sessions of

relaxation in fourth week for pre and post scores

Tension (I) (J) MD Std. For Difference
Sig.
Level Groups Groups (I-J) Error Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Pre Day 1 Day 2 -.08 .45 .87* -.97 .81
Day 3 -.80 .46 .08* -1.70 .10
Day 4 -.33 .46 .47* -1.24 .57
Before
Day 5 -.43 .47 .35* -1.35 .48
relaxation
Day 2 Day 3 -.72 .45 .11* -1.61 .16
session Day 4 -.26 .45 .57* -1.15 .63
Day 5 -.36 .46 .44* -1.26 .54
Day 3 Day 4 .47 .46 .31* -.43 1.37
Day 5 .37 .46 .43* -.54 1.27
Day 4 Day 5 -.10 .47 .83* -1.02 .82
Post Day 1 Day 2 -.26 .45 .57* -1.15 .63

Day 3 -.51 .46 .26* -1.41 .39
Day 4 -.04 .46 .93* -.95 .87
After
Day 5 -.18 .47 .70* -1.10 .74
relaxation
Day 2 Day 3 -.26 .45 .57* -1.14 .62
session Day 4 .22 .45 .64* -.68 1.11
Day 5 .08 .46 .87* -.83 .98
Day 3 Day 4 .47 .46 .30* -.43 1.37
Day 5 .33 .46 .47* -.58 1.24
Day 4 Day 5 -.14 .47 .77* -1.06 .78
*p>0.05.
270
The table reveals that the pre tension data are similar as no significant difference was
found among the different sessions in fourth week (p> 0.05). Even no difference has
been seen between the post relaxation session tension data of the fourth week’s
different sessions with p> 0.05 indicating that the performance of the pre trials is
statistically higher than the post trials.
performance) is .05/1.67 = 0.03, Alan Taylor, (2011). By this criterion, there is no
significant difference in pre and post tension levels between different sessions.
of the experimental and controlled groups separately.
Table 154: Tension’s Pairwise Comparisons between pre and post relaxation
sessions within the different sessions of fourth week
(I) (J) 95% Confidence

MD Std. Interval For Difference
Groups Tension Tension Sig.
Level Level
Bound Bound
Day 1 Pre Post 1.83* .46 .00* .93 2.74
Day 2 Pre Post 1.65* .44 .00* .78 2.53
*
Day 3 Pre Post 2.12 .45 .00* 1.23 3.01
*
Day 4 Pre Post 2.12 .46 .00* 1.22 3.03
Day 5 Pre Post 2.09* .47 .00* 1.16 3.02
* p< 0.01.
The table indicates that a significant difference has been noticed with in the pre and
post tension level of the Gymnasts following the Relaxation sessions of the fourth
week as p< 0.01.
Since, with in the sessions, a significant difference was obtained, each day’s pre and
271
5
4.5
4
3.5
mean
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
pre 3.89 3.58 4.53 4.26 4.36
post 2.15 1.95 2.32 2.21 2.32
Figure 46: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of Fourth
week sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post tension levels of the gymnasts
during fourth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly states that each day, the
tension level prior to the relaxation training is greater than the tension level followed
by the relaxation sessions, through this it can be analyzed that the relaxation training
was effective each day of fourth week to reduce the tension level of the gymnasts and
bring them in a relaxed state.
Table 155: Descriptive Statistics of Fifth week’s Relaxation Training Sessions
Groups (Week 1) Tense Mean Std. Deviation N
Day 1 Pre 4.05 1.64 20

Post 2.15 1.27 20
Day 2 Pre 3.95 1.61 20
Post 2.15 .93 20
Day 3 Pre 3.70 1.49 20
Post 1.85 1.04 20
Day 4 Pre 3.95 1.36 20
Post 1.80 .83 20
Day 5 Pre 4.10 1.52 20
Post 2.20 1.28 20
training between fifth week sessions of selected sample. The tables represents the
272
(SD 1.61) and post 2.15 (SD .93), day 3 pre tense 13.70 (SD 1.49) and post 1.85 (SD
(SD 1.52) and post 2.20 (SD 1.28).
Test of sphericity was computed to test if there is a significant difference among the
fifth week’s scores, and the results are presented in the table below.
Mauchly's Epsilon
Within Subjects
X² Df Sig.
Effect W Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-
Geisser Feldt bound
Days * Tense .48 12.66 9 .18* .72 .87 .25
*p>0.05.
Table indicates the Mauchly’s test, interaction of Days * Tension level does not
F test was also computed by considering the Epsilon of Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted

to check the difference within pre and post tension between the sessions of fifth week
at 0.05.
Table 157: Summary of Two way ANOVA of Tense Rate Within Pre And Post
Trials Between Fifth Week’s Sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Tense * groups Geisser .73 4 .18 1.43 .23*
(pre & post)
Error 9.67 54.90 .18
*p>0.05.
fifth week sessions. It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was
273
found in the Tense with in pre and post trails between fifth week sessions as F (Df= 4,
76) 1.43, p> 0.05. It reflects that the scores of tension before and after training
between sessions do not differ significantly. To understand better, each day’s pre and
post tension level has been presented graphically in the figure below, to analyze the
trend of decrease in the tension level after the completion of each relaxation training
session.
5
4.5
4
3.5
mean
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
pre 4.05 3.95 3.7 3.95 4.1
post 2.15 2.15 1.85 1.8 2.2
Figure 47: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of Fifth week
sessions
during fifth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
relaxation training was effective each day of fifth week to reduce the tension level of
the gymnasts and bring them in a relaxed state.
274
Table 158: Tension Level’s Descriptive Statistics of Sixth week Relaxation

Training Sessions

Week 1
Day 1 Pre 3.95 1.56 22
Post 1.95 1.09 22
Day 2 Pre 4.27 2.14 22
Post 2.59 2.09 22
Day 3 Pre 4.32 1.76 22
Post 2.36 1.99 22
Day 4 Pre 4.59 1.71 22
Post 2.45 1.29 22
Day 5 Pre 4.27 1.58 22
Post 2.27 1.42 22
training sessions of fifth week of selected sample. The tables represents the mean of
day 1 pre tense 3.95 (SD 1.56) and post 1.95 (SD 1.09), day 2 pre tense 4.27 (SD
2.14) and post 2.59 (SD 2.09), day 3 pre tense 4.32 (SD 1.76) and post 2.36 (SD
1.99), day 4 pre tense 4.59 (SD 1.71) and post 2.45 (SD 1.29) and day 5 pre tense 4.27
(SD 1.58) and post 2.27 (SD 1.42).
Mauchly's Epsilon
Within
X² Df Sig.
Subjects Effect Greenhouse Huynh- Lower-
W
Days * Tense .64 8.59 9 .48* .83 1.00 .25
*p>0.05.
275
than 0.05, W= .64, X² = 8.59, p> .05. Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have
used Epsilon Huynh-Feeldt to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be

check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post tension levels between the sessions of
sixth week.
between sixth week sessions
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Tense * groups 1.23 4 .31 1.48 .21*
(pre & post)
Error 17.37 84.00 .21
*p>0.05.
It is evident from the table that an insignificant difference was found in the Tense
with in pre and post trails between sixth week’s sessions as F (Df = 4, 84) 1.48, p>
0.05. It reflects that the scores of tense before and after training between sessions do
not differ significantly.
As, between the days, no significant difference has been obtained, each day’s pre and
in the tension level after the completion of each relaxation training session
276
20
19.5
19
18.5
18
mean
17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
pre 19.59 18.72 18.91 19.95 19.09
post 16.04 15.91 16.5 16.27 15.27
Figure 48: Graphical representation of Pre and Post Tense means of Sixth week
sessions
The graphical representation shows the pre and post tension level of the gymnasts
during sixth week’s relaxation training. The graph clearly state that each day, the
relaxation training was effective each day of sixth week to reduce the tension level of
the gymnasts and bring them in a relaxed state.
277
Section V- Effect of Imagery Training
Although, imagery training is influential to bring about the desirous changes in an

athlete’s performance. However, the learning process of imagery is such that it is
difficult to assess whether the subjects are involved in imagery or not as its always a
mental picture in your brain that you imagine, nobody else is able to see what you
imagine in your brain. To have a better evaluation of how clearly the subjects are able
to visualize the different important aspect of imagery, the Scholar every day, after
rendering the imagery sessions, had collected the feedback using a four statement
questionnaire on the four important areas i.e kinesthetic, auditory, vividness and
mood. To assess the effectiveness of each training session, repeated measure was
computed. Since, all the thirty sessions could not be computed due to software’s
limitations, the analysis was done on the weekly basis. The results are presented from
table No. 161 to tables No. 282.
Imagery using Kinesthetic
Table 161: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery Training sessions for Six
weeks
Week 1 Mean SD N
Pre (Day 1) 4.15 .87 20
Week 1 4.40 .68 20
Week 2 4.40 .59 20
Week 3 4.70 .57 20
Week 4 4.70 .57 20
Week 5 4.70 .57 20
Week 6 4.75 .55 20
The descriptive statistics table reveals the mean and the standard deviation of Imagery
with kinesthetic sessions over the six weeks training, i.e first session represents the
least value with the improvement in the imagery with kinesthetic training scores by
the last week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 4.15 ±
.87), Week 1 (M, 4.40 ± .68), Week 2 (M, 4.40 ± .59), week 3 (M, 4.70 ± .57), week 4
278
(M, 4.70 ± .57), week 5 (M, 4.70 ± .57) and in week 6 (M= 4.75 ± .55). mean effect
size of pre and week 6 is high at 0.84.
“ Test of sphericity was computed to test if there is a significant difference among the
six week’s scores, and the results are presented in the table below.”

X² Df Sig.
Kinesthetic
Imagery six .18 28.94 20 .09* .68 .88 .17
weeks Training
*p>0.05.
Mauchly’s test for six weeks Kinesthetic Imagery Training, reveals that there is no
significant violation of the sphericity assumption because the significant value is

adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between the sessions
of six weeks.
Table 163: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during Six
Weeks of Kinesthetic Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Kinesthetic Geisser 6.24 6 1.04 3.32 .00*
Imagery
(Six Weeks) Error 35.76 77.45 .46
*p< 0.01.
The above table shows the repeated measure ANOVA calculations, showing that there
is significant improvement in the scores of Imagery with kinesthetic during the six
279
weeks training as obtained F = 3.32 at p<0.01. It means that ability to imagine using
kinesthetic in players has developed significantly. So, there is a influence of Imagery
Training on the kinesthetic ability of the Gymnasts. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of training, is not accepted.
Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear trend
by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table below.
Table 164: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for six weeks sessions of
Kinesthetic Imagery
Source of Variance SS df MSS F p
Linear 5.21 1 5.21 11.07 .00*

Six Weeks
Quadratic .61 1 .61 3.03 .09
Sessions
Cubic 3.79 1 3.79 .00 1.00
Linear 8.94 19 .47

Error
(six week Quadratic 3.82 19 .20
sessions) Cubic 5.33 19 .28
* p< 0.01.
There is significant linear effect of training f (1, 19) = 11.07 p< 0.01. It can be
concluded that six weeks imagery training had a linear effect of improvement in the
imagery using kinesthetic. So, the number of sessions in six weeks could improve the
imagery with kinesthetic significantly.
The pairwise comparisons for the main effect of training corrected, using a bonferroni
adjustment was further computed.
280
Table 165: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Kinesthetic

Imagery Training
95% Confidence Interval For

MD Std.
(I-J) Error
Pre Week 1 -.25 .20 .23 -.68 .18
(Day 1) Week 2 -.25 .20 .23 -.68 .18
*
Week 3 -.55 .18 .01** -.94 -.16
*
Week 4 -.55 .23 .03* -1.04 -.06
*
Week 5 -.55 .19 .01** -.96 -.13
*
Week 6 -.60 .23 .02* -1.1 -.11
Week 1 Week 2 .00 .19 1.00 -.40 .40
Week 3 -.30 .16 .08 -.64 .04
Week 4 -.30 .16 .08 -.64 .04
Week 5 -.30 .19 .14 -.70 .10
*
Week 6 -.35 .13 .01** -.62 -.07
Week 2 Week 3 -.30 .16 .08 -.64 .04
Week 4 -.30 .16 .08 -.64 .04
Week 5 -.30 .16 .08 -.64 .04
*
Week 6 -.35 .17 .05* -.70 -.00
Week 3 Week 4 .00 .14 1.00 -.30 .30
Week 5 .00 .18 1.00 -.37 .37
Week 6 -.05 .13 .72 -.33 .23
Week 4 Week 5 .00 .18 1.00 -.37 .37
Week 6 -.05 .08 .58 -.23 .13
Week 5 Week 6 -.05 .17 .77 -.40 .30
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The table indicates that the main effect reflects a significant difference p< .05
“
between pre (day 1) and week, 3 week 4, week 5 and week 6 at p< 0.05 and difference
of week 1 and week 2 with week 6 is p< 0.05.”
The graphical representation of the mean values of pre data and six weeks, kinesthetic
imagery sessions is presented in the figure 49.
281
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
Pre
Week Week Week Week Week Week
(Day
1 2 3 4 5 6
1)
Mean 4.15 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.75
Figure 49: Graphical representation of mean values of six weeks kinesthetic

Imagery Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of six weeks depicts a significant
linear development in the Kinesthetic Imagery Training.
Further, to test the effectiveness of each session, week wise calculations were done
for six weeks for each session i.e five sessions each week, to assess the each session’s
change during the week training.
Table 166: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery for the first week’s
sessions
Week 1 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.11 .85 27
Day 2 4.48 .75 27
Day 3 4.44 .69 27
Day 4 4.33 .83 27
Day 5 4.41 .69 27
The descriptive statistics table reveals the mean and the standard deviation of
Kinesthetic Imagery sessions in week 1, i.e first session represents the least value with
the slow and gradual improvement in the kinesthetic imagery training by the last day
282
of the week 1. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.11 ± .85), day 2 (M=
4.48 ± .75), day 3 (M= 4.44 ± .69), day 4 (M= 4.33 ± .83) and day 5 (M= 4.41 ± .69).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant change among the day’s scores,
and the results are presented in the table below.

X² df Sig.
Kinesthetic
.63 11.44 9 .25* .85 .99 .25
Imagery first week
*p>0.05.
Table reveals that “the main effect of training does not significantly violate the
sphericity assumption because the significant value is greater than 0.05, W= .63, X² =
11.44, p> .05.” Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have used Epsilon Huynh-
Feeldt to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as
recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992).
F test was computed by considering the Epsilon of Huynh-Feldt adjusted to check the
difference at 0.05 between the different sessions of first week.
Table 168: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during first
Week of Kinesthetic Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Kinesthetic 2.34 4 .58 1.38 .25*
Imagery
(first Week) Error 44.06 103.10 .43
*p>0.05.
is no significant improvement in the scores of Kinesthetic Imagery during the sessions
of first week’s training as obtained F = 1.38 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to
283
imagine with kinesthetic in players could not improve significantly. Thus, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
by computing the data. The finding is presented in table below.
Table 169: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for week 1 sessions of
Kinesthetic Imagery
Source of Variance SS Df MSS F p
Linear .53 1 .53 1.17 .29*

Week 1
Quadratic .86 1 .86 1.90 .18
Sessions
Cubic .95 1 .95 2.85 .10
Linear 11.87 26 .46
Error Quadratic 11.71 26 .45
Cubic 8.65 26 .33

*p>0.05.
There is an insignificant linear effect of training as f (1, 26) = 1.17 p> 0.05. further,
the quadratic trend also represent insignificant effect at p> .05. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the number of sessions in first week has marginally improved the
mean value but could not improve the kinesthetic imagery statistically significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s kinesthetic imagery
sessions is presented below.
284
4.6
4.5
4.4
mean
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
Mean 4.11 4.48 4.44 4.33 4.41
Figure 50: Graphical representation of mean values of each session’s kinesthetic

Imagery of first week
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s different sessions
depicts insignificant linear growth.
Table 170: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery for each session of

second week
Week 2 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.62 .74 27
Day 2 4.29 .87 27
Day 3 4.25 .86 27
Day 4 4.67 .55 27
Day 5 4.48 .58 27
Kinesthetic Imagery sessions in week 2. It can be observed that there is a
improvement in the kinesthetic imagery training scores from the first day of the week
to the last day of the week 2. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.62 ±
.74), day 2 (M= 4.29 ± .87), day 3 (M= 4.25 ± .86), day 4 (M= 4.67 ± .55) and day 5
(M= 4.48 ± .58).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant changes among the day’s
scores of second week, and the results are presented in the table below.
285

X² Df Sig.
Kinesthetic Imagery
.44 19.89 9 .02* .79 .91 .25
of second week
*p<0.05.
Table reveals that “the Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity have
been violated, X² (9) = 19.89, p< .05.” Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have

check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of second week.
Table 172: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during Second
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Kinesthetic 3.75 3.14 1.19 3.02 .03*
Imagery
Error 32.25 94.23 .34
*p<0.05.
The above table shows the repeated measure ANOVA calculations, depicting that
there is significant improvement in the scores of Kinesthetic Imagery during the
sessions of second week training as obtained F = 3.02 at p< 0.05. It means that ability
to imagine with kinesthetic in players improved significantly. Thus, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is not accepted.
As the repeated measure ANOVA calculations shows a significant improvement in
the scores of Kinesthetic Imagery, pairwise comparison was tested to check the
changes in various sessions.
286
Table 173: Pairwise Comparisons among the various sessions of second week’s
Kinesthetic Imagery Training

(I-J) Error
Day 1 Day 2 .33 .17 .59* -.18 .85
Day 3 .37 .19 .57* -.20 .94
Day 4 -.04 .17 1.00* -.57 .49
Day 5 .15 .17 1.00* -.36 .66
Day 2 Day 3 .04 .14 1.00* -.38 .45
Day 4 -.37 .16 .30* -.86 .12
Day 5 -.18 .12 1.00* -.55 .18
Day 3 Day 4 -.41 .15 .13* -.88 .06
Day 5 -.22 .13 1.00* -.63 .19
Day 4 Day 5 .18 .09 .57* -.10 .47
*p>0.05.
The table indicates that the main effect reflects an insignificant difference p> .05
between the various days of second week.
Further, the repeated measure within sessions was analyzed to check the linear trend
Table 174: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for second week’s sessions
of Kinesthetic Imagery
Source of Variance SS Df MSS F P

Linear .01 1 .01 .04 .85*
Week 2 Sessions Quadratic 1.06 1 1.06 3.59 .07
Cubic 2.13 1 2.13 6.71 .01
Linear 10.58 26 .41
Cubic 8.27 26 .32

*p>0.05.
287
The table reveals that there is an insignificant main linear effect of training as f (1, 26)
= .04 p> 0.05. Therefore it can be concluded that the number of sessions in second
week could not improve the kinesthetic imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of second week’s kinesthetic

imagery’s five sessions is presented below.
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.62 4.29 4.25 4.67 4.48
Figure 51: Graphical representation of mean values of each session of kinesthetic

Imagery in second week
The graphical representation of the mean values of second week’s different sessions
“
depicts a significant cubic growth and insignificant linear growth.”
Table 175: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery for third week’s sessions
Week 3 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.45 .76 20
Day 2 4.50 .89 20
Day 3 4.65 .59 20
Day 4 4.65 .49 20
Day 5 4.60 .68 20
288
Kinesthetic Imagery sessions in the third week i.e, day 1 (M= 4.45 ± .76), day 2 (M=
4.50 ± .89), day 3 (M= 4.65 ± .59), day 4 (M= 4.65 ± .49) and day 5 (M= 4.60 ± 68).
Is there significant difference among the day’s scores, repeated measure was
Epsilon
Within Subjects Mauchly's
X² Df Sig.
Kinesthetic Imagery
.49 12.22 9 .20* .71 .85 .25
third week
*p>0.05.
12.22, p> .05.” < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon Greenhouse-Geisser to
adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as
recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Further repeated measure ANOVA test was
computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the different sessions of third week.
Table 177: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during third
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Kinesthetic Geisser .66 4 .16 .44 .78*
Imagery
Error 28.54 54.28 .53
*p>0.05.
of third week training as obtained F = .44 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagery
289
kinesthetic in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
Table 178: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for third week’s sessions
Kinesthetic Imagery
“ Source of Variance” SS Df MSS F P
Linear .40 1 .40 1.79 .19*
Third Week’s Sessions Quadratic .17 1 .17 .53 .48
Cubic .04 1 .04 .08 .79
Linear 4.29 19 .23
Cubic 11.25 19 .59

*p>0.05.
There is insignificant effect of training f (1, 19) = 1.79 p> 0.05. further, the quadratic
trend also represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the number of
sessions in the third week, could not improve the kinesthetic imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of third week’s kinesthetic imagery
290
4.7
4.6
mean
4.5
4.4
Mean 4.45 4.5 4.65 4.65 4.6

Imagery in third week
The graphical representation of the mean values of third week’s different sessions
“
depicts a linear growth but with an insignificant margin.”
Table 179: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery fourth week’s sessions
Week 4 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.47 .71 17
Day 2 4.59 .51 17
Day 3 4.65 .61 17
Day 4 4.59 .71 17
Day 5 4.65 .61 17
of the week 4. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.47 ± .71), day 2 (M=
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant difference among the day’s
scores, and the results are presented in the table below
291

X² Df Sig.
Kinesthetic Imagery
.59 7.49 9 .59* .77 .98 .25
fourth week
*p>0.05.
7.49 p> .05.” Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have used Epsilon Huynh-Feeldt
to adjust f score and the conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as
Table 181: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during fourth
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Kinesthetic .353 4 .09 .50 .73*
Imagery
Error 11.25 62.70 .18
*p>0.05.
of fourth week training as obtained F = .50 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to
imagine auditor in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis
that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
292
Table 182: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for fourth week’s sessions
of Kinesthetic Imagery
Source of Variance”
“ SS df MSS F p
Linear .21 1 .21 1.21 .29*

Fourth Week’s
Quadratic .07 1 .07 .46 .51
Sessions
Cubic .05 1 .05 .19 .67
Linear 2.79 16 .17

Error (week 4
Quadratic 2.36 16 .15
sessions)
Cubic 4.45 16 .28
*p>0.05.
The results show that there is no significant linear effect of training f (1, 16) = 1.21
p>0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that the number of sessions in fourth week
could not improve the kinesthetic imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s kinesthetic imagery
session is presented below.
4.7
4.6
mean
4.5
4.4
Mean 4.47 4.59 4.65 4.59 4.65

Imagery during fourth week
The graphical representation of the mean values of various sessions of fourth week,
clearly states that though there is statistical insignificant change in the scores but by
293
seeing the graph it is quite evident that in each session an improvement has been
noticed.
Table 183: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery for fifth week sessions
Week 5 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.57 .59 21
Day 2 4.67 .58 21
Day 3 4.48 .75 21
Day 4 4.48 .60 21
Day 5 4.62 .59 21
Kinesthetic Imagery sessions in fifth week, i.e first session represents the least value
with the slow and gradual improvement in the kinesthetic imagery training by the last
day of the fifth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.57 ± .59),
day 2 (M= 4.67 ± .58), day 3 (M= 4.48 ± .75), day 4 (M= 4.48 ± .60 and day 5 (M=
4.62 ± .59).
To test if there is a significant difference among the day’s scores, repeated measure
was computed and the results are presented in the table below

X² df Sig.
Kinesthetic
.58 10.05 9 .35* .83 1.00 .25
Imagery week 4
*p>0.05.
294
Repeated Measure ANOVA test was computed to check the difference at 0.05
between the sessions of fifth week.
Table 185: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during fifth
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
Kinesthetic .61 4 .15 .63 .64*
Imagery
Error 19.39 80.00 .24
*p>0.05.
The above table shows an insignificant improvement in the scores of Kinesthetic

Imagery during the sessions of week 5 training as obtained F = .63 at p > 0.05. It
means that ability to imagine kinesthetic in players did not improve significantly.
Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
Table 186: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for fifth week’s sessions of
Kinesthetic Imagery
“ SS df MSS F p
Linear .02 1 .02 .09 .77*

Week 5
Quadratic .12 1 .12 .36 .56
Sessions
Cubic .39 1 .39 1.97 .18
Linear 4.18 20 .21

Error (week
5 sessions)
Cubic 3.91 20 .19
*p<0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 20) = .09 p>0.05. further, the
quadratic trend also represent insignificant. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
number of sessions in week 5 could not improve the kinesthetic imagery significantly.
295
The graphical representation of the mean values of fifth week’s kinesthetic imagery
sessions is presented in the figure.
4.7
4.6
mean
4.5
4.4
Mean 4.57 4.67 4.48 4.48 4.62

Imagery in fifth week
The graphical representation shows the mean values of fifth week’s different session’s
trend of changes in the scores.
Table 187: Descriptive Statistics of Kinesthetic Imagery for sixth week’s sessions
Week 6 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.64 .58 22
Day 2 4.54 .51 22
Day 3 4.77 .43 22
Day 4 4.63 .73 22
Day 5 4.73 .55 22
of the week 6. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.64 ± .58), day 2 (M
= 4.54 ± .51), day 3 (M= 4.77 ± .43), day 4 (M= 4.63 ± .73) and day 5 (M= 4.73 ±
.55).
296

X² df Sig.
Effect W Greenhouse Huynh- Lower
Kinesthetic Imagery
.36 19.75 9 .02* .67 .78 .25
week 6
*p<0.05.
been violated, X² (9) = 19.75, p< .05.” < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
between the sessions of sixth week.
Table 189: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during Sixth
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Kinesthetic .69 2.70 .26 .88 .45*
Geisser
Imagery
(Sixth Week) Error 16.51 56.64 .29
*p>0.05.
of week 6 training as obtained F = .88 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
kinesthetic in players could not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
297
Table 190: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for sixth week’s sessions of
Kinesthetic Imagery
“ SS Df MSS F p
Linear .16 1 .16 1.06 .31*
Sixth Week’s Sessions Quadratic .00 1 .00 .00 1.00
Cubic .02 1 .02 .11 .75
Linear 3.24 21 .15
Error (week 6 sessions) Quadratic 6.14 21 .29
Cubic 3.58 21 .17

*p>0.05.
There is insignificant main linear effect of training f (1, 21) = 1.06 p> 0.05. Further,
the quadratic trend represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the
number of sessions in sixth week could not improve the kinesthetic imagery
significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth week’s kinesthetic imagery
4.8
4.7
mean
4.6
4.5
Mean 4.64 4.54 4.77 4.63 4.73

Imagery during sixth week
298
The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth week’s different sessions
“
depicts insignificant linear growth.”
Imagery Training using Mood
Table 191: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery Training sessions for Six
weeks
Week 1 Mean SD N
Pre (Day 1) 4.05 1.05 20
Week 1 4.05 .82 20
Week 2 4.45 .60 20
Week 3 4.50 .83 20
Week 4 4.35 .74 20
Week 5 4.30 .57 20
Week 6 4.75 .44 20
The descriptive statistics table reveals the mean and the standard deviation of Mood
Imagery sessions over the six weeks training, i.e first session represents the least
value with the improvement in the mood imagery training scores by the last week of
the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 4.05 ± 1.05), Week 1 (M,
4.05 ± .82), Week 2 (M, 4.45 ± .60), week 3 (M, 4.50 ± .83), week 4 (M, 4.35 ± .74),
week 5 (M, 4.30 ± .57) and in week 6 (M= 4.75 ± .44).

X² Df Sig.
Effect W Greenhous Huynh- Lower-
e-Geisser Feldt bound
Mood Imagery
.09 39.82 20 .01* .61 .78 .17
six weeks Training
*p<0.01.
Table reveals that the Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity have
been violated, X² (20) = 39.82, p< .01. < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
299

To test if there significant difference among the week’s scores of imagery using
mood, repeated measure was computed and the results are presented in the table
below.
Weeks of Mood Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 5.96 3.60 1.66 3.22 .02*
Mood Imagery
Error 51.36 69.99 .73
*p<0.05.
is significant improvement in the scores of Mood Imagery during the six weeks
training as obtained F = 3.22 at p < 0.05. It means that ability to imagine using mood
in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of Imagery Training.
Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is not
accepted.
Table 194: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Mood Imagery
Training

(I) Group (J) Group Sig.
Bound Bound
Pre Week 1 .00 .24 1.00 -.84 .84
(Day 1) Week 2 -.40 .21 1.00 -1.14 .34
Week 3 -.45 .27 1.00 -1.38 .48
Week 4 -.30 .27 1.00 -1.25 .65
Week 5 -.25 .28 1.00 -1.23 .73
Week 6 -.70 .25 .25 -1.58 .18
300
Table 194 continue

(I) Group (J) Group Sig.
Bound Bound
Week 1 Week 2 -.40 .197 1.00 -1.09 .29
Week 3 -.45 .256 1.00 -1.35 .45
Week 4 -.30 .252 1.00 -1.18 .58
Week 5 -.25 .176 1.00 -.87 .37
*
Week 6 -.70 .164 .01** -1.27 -.13
Week 2 Week 3 -.05 .23 1.00 -.87 .77
Week 4 .10 .16 1.00 -.46 .66
Week 5 .15 .19 1.00 -.53 .83
Week 6 -.30 .18 1.00 -.93 .33
Week 3 Week 4 .15 .17 1.00 -.43 .73
Week 5 .20 .19 1.00 -.45 .85
Week 6 -.25 .20 1.00 -.96 .46
Week 4 Week 5 .05 .17 1.00 -.54 .64
Week 6 -.40 .18 .88 -1.04 .24
*
Week 5 Week 6 -.45 .11 .02* -.85 -.05
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
“
between week 1 and week 6, week 5 and week 6 at p< 0.01 and p< 0.05 respectively.”
Mood Imagery
“ SS df MSS F p
Linear 4.46 1 4.46 5.78 .03*
Six Weeks Sessions Quadratic .04 1 .04 .07 .79
Cubic 1.01 1 1.01 3.29 .09
Linear 14.68 19 .77

Error
Cubic 5.82 19 .31

*p<0.05.
301
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 19) = 5.78 p< 0.05. It can be
mood imagery. So, the number of sessions in six weeks could improve the mood
imagery significantly. The graphical representation of the mean values of pre and six
weeks, mood imagery’s five sessions is presented below.
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
Pre
(Day
1 2 3 4 5 6
1)
Mean 4.05 4.05 4.45 4.5 4.35 4.3 4.75
Figure 56: Graphical representation of mean values of six weeks mood Imagery
Training
The graphical representation of the mean value of six weeks depicts a significant
linear development in the Imagery using mood. It could be understood that imagery
training using mood was effective over the period of six weeks.
Further calculations are week wise i.e first week to sixth week’s scores were
calculated, to assess each session’s change during that particular week training.
Table 196: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery for the first week’s sessions
Week 1 Mean SD N
Day 1 3.88 1.01 27
Day 2 4.40 .89 27
Day 3 3.85 .95 27
Day 4 3.89 1.05 27
Day 5 4.11 .85 27
302
Imagery sessions in week 1, i.e first session represents the least value with the slow
and gradual improvement in the mood imagery training by the last day of the week 1.
Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 3.88 ± 1.01), day 2 (M= 4.40 ± .89),
day 3 (M= 3.85 ± .95), day 4 (M= 3.89 ± 1.05) and day 5 (M= 4.11 ± .85).

X² df Sig.
Mood Imagery
.76 6.65 9 .67* .89 1.00 .25
first week
*p>0.05.
6.65, p> .05.” Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have used Epsilon Huynh-Feeldt
Week of Mood Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
5.96 4 1.49 3.22 .01*
Mood Imagery
Error 48.04 104.00 .46
*p< 0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Mood Imagery during the sessions of week
1 training as obtained F = 3.22 at p < 0.05. It means that ability to imagine with mood
303
in players improved significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant
influence of training, is not accepted.
Calculation of Pairwise Comparisons among first week’s sessions was also computed,
the results are given below.
Table 199: Pairwise Comparisons among first week’s sessions of Mood Imagery
Training

(I) Group (J) Group Sig. For Difference
Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 -.52* .16 .04* -1.02 -.02
Day 3 .04 .19 1.00 -.54 .61

Day 4 .00 .18 1.00 -.57 .57
Day 5 -.22 .21 1.00 -.86 .42
Day 2 Day 3 .56 .19 .08 -.04 1.15
Day 4 .52 .17 .06 -.01 1.05
Day 5 .29 .18 1.00 -.24 .83
Day 3 Day 4 -.04 .16 1.00 -.54 .47
Day 5 -.26 .18 1.00 -.82 .29
Day 4 Day 5 -.22 .21 1.00 -.86 .42
*p<0.05.
“
between day 1 and day 2, at p< 0.05.”
by computing the data. The finding is presented in table.
304
Table 200: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for first week’s sessions of
Mood Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS Df MSS F p
Linear .01 1 .01 .03 .86*
First Week’s Sessions Quadratic .00 1 .00 .00 1.00
Cubic 4.28 1 4.28 9.19 .00
Linear 13.58 26 .52
Cubic 12.12 26 .47

*p>0.05.
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 26) = .03 p> 0.05. But cubic
effect is significant at p< 0.01 Therefore it can be concluded that the number of
sessions in first week could improve the mood imagery significantly cubically.
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s sessions of mood
imagery is presented below in the figure.
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
mean
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
Mean 3.88 4.4 3.85 3.89 4.11
Figure 57: Graphical representation of mean values of each session of mood

Imagery in first week
depicts linear growth in the imagery ability using mood.
305
Table 201: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery for second week’s five sessions
Week 2 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.18 1.14 27
Day 2 4.00 1.07 27
Day 3 4.18 .73 27
Day 4 4.33 .78 27
Day 5 4.52 .58 27
Imagery sessions in the second week. It can be observed that there is an improvement
in the mood imagery training scores from the first day of the week to the last day of
the week 2. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.18 ± 1.14), day 2 (M=
4.00 ± 1.07), day 3 (M= 4.18 ± .73), day 4 (M= 4.33 ± .78) and day 5 (M= 4.52 ±
.58).
To check if there is a significant difference among the second week’s session’s scores,
repeated measure was computed and the results are presented in the table below.

X² Df Sig.
Effect W Greenhouse Huynh Lower-
-Geisser -Feldt bound
Mood Imagery
.58 13.09 9 .16* .84 .98 .25
second week
*p>0.05.
recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Further f was computed by considering the
Epsilon of Huynh-Feldt adjusted.
306
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
4.04 4 1.01 2.35 .06*
Mood Imagery
Error 44.76 101.91 .44
*p>0.05.
is no significant improvement in the scores of Mood Imagery during the sessions of
second week’s training as obtained F = 2.35 at p> 0.05. It means that ability to
imagine using mood in players could not improve significantly. Thus, the null
hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
Table 204: Pairwise Comparisons among six weeks sessions of Mood Imagery
Training

Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 .18 .19 .34 -.21 .58
Day 3 .00 .18 1.00 -.36 .36
Day 4 -.15 .14 .29 -.43 .14
Day 5 -.33 .21 .13 -.77 .11
Day 2 Day 3 -.18 .19 .34 -.58 .21
Day 4 -.33 .19 .09 -.73 .06
*
Day 5 -.52 .19 .01* -.90 -.13
Day 3 Day 4 -.15 .15 .33 -.45 .16
Day 5 -.33 .18 .07 -.69 .03
Day 4 Day 5 -.18 .15 .23 -.49 .13
* p< 0.01.
“
between day 2 and day 5. Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed
to check the linear trend by computing the data.” The finding is presented in the table
below.
307
of Mood Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS Df MSS f p

Linear 2.70 1 2.70 4.81 .04*
Second Week’s Sessions Quadratic .95 1 .95 3.49 .07
Cubic .30 1 .30 .542 .47
Linear 14.60 26 .56
Cubic 14.40 26 .55

*p<0.05.
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 26) = 4.81 p< 0.05. Quadratic
trend represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the number of
sessions in week 2 could improve the mood imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of second week’s, mood imagery
sessions is presented below in the figure.
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
mean
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
Mean 4.18 4 4.18 4.33 4.52

The graphical representation of the mean value of second week’s different sessions
depicts a significant linear growth.
308
Table 206: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery for third week’s sessions
Week 3 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.55 .76 20
Day 2 4.50 .83 20
Day 3 4.40 .68 20
Day 4 4.25 .85 20
Day 5 4.45 .82 20
Imagery sessions in week 3, i.e, day 1 (M= 4.55 ± .76), day 2 (M= 4.50 ± .83), day 3
(M= 4.40 ± .68), day 4 (M= 4.25 ± .85) and day 5 (M= 4.45 ± .82).
was computed and the results are presented in the table below.

X² df Sig.
Third week’s
.39 16.03 9 .07* .63 .74 .25
Mood Imagery
*p>0.05.

adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of third week.
309
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 1.06 4 .26 .63 .64*
Mood Imagery
Error 32.14 48.25 .67
*p>0.05.
third week training as obtained F = .63 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagery
mood in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
no significant influence of training, is accepted.
Table 209: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for third week’s sessions of
Mood Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS df MSS f p
Third Linear .40 1 .40 1.35 .26*
Week’s Quadratic .29 1 .29 1.26 .27

Sessions Cubic .32 1 .32 .55 .47
Linear 5.69 19 .30

Error (week
3 sessions)
Cubic 11.08 19 .58
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 19) = 1.35 p>0.05. further, the
quadratic trend also represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the
number of sessions in week 3 could not improve the mood imagery significantly.
310
The graphical representation of the mean values of third week’s mood imagery
sessions is presented in the given figure.
4.5
4.4
4.3
mean
4.2
4.1
4
Mean 4.05 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.35

depicts a linear growth but with an insignificant margin.
Table 210: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery fourth week sessions
Week 4 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.29 .85 17
Day 2 4.35 .78 17
Day 3 4.41 .79 17
Day 4 4.35 .86 17
Day 5 4.29 .77 17
311
Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.29 ± .85), day 2 (M= 4.35 ± .78),
day 3 (M= 4.41 ± .79), day 4 (M= 4.35 ± .86) and day 5 (M= 4.29 ± .77).
Within Epsilon
Mauchly's
Mood Imagery
.41 12.6 9 .18* .75 .94 .25
week 4
*p>0.05.
12.6, p> .05.” = .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon Greenhouse-Geisser to adjust
f score and the conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as recommended
by Girden, E. R. (1992). F test has been computed to check the difference at 0.05
between the sessions of fourth week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser .16 4 .04 .09 .98*
Mood Imagery
Error 29.03 47.86 .61
*p>0.05.
week 4 training as obtained F = .09 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
auditor in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
no significant influence of training, is accepted. Further, the repeated measure within
312
subjects was analyzed to check the linear trend by computing the data. The finding is
presented in the given table.
Table 213: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for fourth week sessions of
Mood Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS Df MSS f p
Fourth Linear .00 1 .00 .00 1.00*
Week’s Quadratic .15 1 .15 .32 .58

Sessions Cubic .00 1 .00 .00 1.00
Linear 6.80 16 .42
Cubic 11.20 16 .70
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 16) = .00 p> 0.05. further, the
number of sessions in fourth week could not improve the mood imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s mood imagery
sessions is presented in the given figure.
4.5
4.4
mean
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.29 4.35 4.41 4.35 4.29

Imagery in fourth week
313
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s imagery sessions,
which clearly shows an improvement by the third day and then a slight decline in the
scores.
Table 214: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery for fifth week sessions
Week 5 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.47 .81 21
Day 2 4.52 .60 21
Day 3 4.57 .50 21
Day 4 4.28 .84 21
Day 5 4.38 .59 21
Imagery sessions in fifth week, i.e first session represents the least value with the slow
Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.47 ± .81), day 2 (M= 4.52 ± .60),
day 3 (M= 4.57 ± .50), day 4 (M= 4.28 ± .84) and day 5 (M= 4.38 ± .59).
Is there significant difference among the day’s scores, repeated measure was
Within
Mauchly's Epsilon
Subjects X² df Sig.
Mood Imagery
.22 28.13 9 .00* .63 .72 .25
week 4
* p< 0.01.
314
Further F test was also computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions
of fifth week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 1.10 4 .28 .81 .52*
Mood Imagery
Error 27.29 50.09 .54
*p>0.05.
fifth week’s training as obtained F = .81 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
mood in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
Mood Imagery
“ SS df MSS f p
Linear .38 1 .38 1.22 .28*
Week 5
Quadratic .08 1 .08 .28 .60
Sessions
Cubic .30 1 .30 .58 .45
Linear 6.31 20 .32

Error (week
5 sessions)
Cubic 10.49 20 .52
*p>0.05.
315
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 20) = 1.22 p>0.05. further, the
number of sessions in fifth week could not improve the mood imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of fifth week’s mood imagery
sessions is presented in the figure below.
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.47 4.52 4.57 4.28 4.38
Figure 61: Graphical representation of mean values of each session of Imagery

using mood in fifth week
The graphical representation of the mean values of fifth week’s different sessions
show an improvement in the imagery using mood.
Table 218: Descriptive Statistics of Mood Imagery for sixth week’s sessions
Week 6 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.32 .57 22
Day 2 4.41 .67 22
Day 3 4.72 .45 22
Day 4 4.77 .53 22
Day 5 4.77 .43 22
Imagery sessions in sixth week, i.e first session represents the least value with the
slow and gradual improvement in the mood imagery training by the last day of the
316
sixth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.3 ± .57), day 2 (M =
Within
Mauchly's Epsilon
Mood Imagery
.43 16.15 9 .06* .72 .84 .25
week 4
*p>0.05.
Repeated Measure ANOVA test was computed by considering the Epsilon of

Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of
sixth week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 4.22 4 1.05 6.82 .00*
Mood Imagery
Error 12.98 60.21 .22
*p< 0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Mood Imagery during the sessions of sixth
week’s training as obtained F = 6.82 at p < 0.01. It means that ability to imagine
317
mood in players improved significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no
significant influence of training, is not accepted.
Table 221: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Mood Imagery
Training

Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 -.09 .15 1.00 -.55 .37
*
Day 3 -.41 .13 .04* -.80 -.01
Day 4 -.45* .11 .00** -.79 -.11
*
Day 5 -.45 .11 .00** -.79 -.11
Day 2 Day 3 -.32 .15 .49 -.79 .16
*
Day 4 -.36 .10 .02* -.69 -.03
Day 5 -.36 .14 .17 -.80 .07
Day 3 Day 4 -.04 .10 1.00 -.37 .28
Day 5 -.04 .08 1.00 -.29 .20
Day 4 Day 5 .00 .09 1.00 -.29 .29
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The table indicates that the main effect reflects an insignificant difference p< .05
between the day 1 and day 3, day 4 and day 5. And there is a significant difference
between day 2 and day4. Further, the repeated measure and pairwise comparison
within subjects was analyzed to check the linear trend by computing the data. The
finding is presented in the table below.
Mood Imagery
“ SS df MSS f p
Linear 3.56 1 3.56 26.38 .00*
Week 6
Quadratic .32 1 .32 2.42 .13
Sessions
Cubic .16 1 .16 1.41 .25
Error Linear 2.84 21 .13
(week 6 Quadratic 2.82 21 .13

* p< 0.01.
318
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 21) = 26.38 p< 0.05. Further,
the quadratic trend represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the
number of sessions in the sixth week improved the mood imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth week’s mood imagery
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.31 4.27 4.59 4.45 4.68

Imagery in sixth week
The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth week’s sessions depicts a
significant linear growth in the imagery using mood during the sixth week.
319
Imagery Using Auditory
Auditory imagery involves the visualization of the picture or the scene with full effect
of sound, it includes the realization of all the sounds of the scene imagined to have the
feeling of real execution.
Table 223: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery Training sessions for Six
weeks
Week 1 Mean SD N
Pre (Day 1) 3.20 1.28 20
Week 1 4.20 .89 20
Week 2 4.50 .69 20
Week 3 4.50 .69 20
Week 4 4.60 .68 20
Week 5 4.30 .73 20
Week 6 4.65 .49 20
Auditory Imagery sessions over the six weeks training, i.e first session represents the
least value with the improvement in the auditory imagery training scores by the last
week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 3.20 ± 1.28),
Week 1 (M, 4.20 ± .89), Week 2 (M, 4.50 ± .69), week 3 (M, 4.50 ± .69), week 4 (M,
4.60 ± .68), week 5 (M, 4.30 ± .73) and in week 6 (M= 4.65 ± .49).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant difference among the week’s

X² Df Sig.
Auditory Imagery
.25 23.18 20 .29* .68 .88 .17
six weeks
*p>0.05.
320
between the sessions of six weeks.
Weeks of Auditory Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Auditory Geisser 30.18 6 5.03 10.17 .00*
Imagery
Error 56.39 77.17 .73
*p< 0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Auditory Imagery during the six weeks
training as obtained F = 10.17 at p < 0.01. It means that ability to imagine using
auditory in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of Imagery
Training. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is
not accepted.
321
Table 226: Pairwise Comparisons among six weeks sessions of Auditory Imagery
Training

MD Std.
Bound Bound
Pre -1.00* .25 .02* -1.88 -.12
Week 1
*
(Day 1) Week 2 -1.30 .25 .00** -2.18 -.42
*
Week 3 -1.30 .32 .01** -2.41 -.19
*
Week 4 -1.40 .25 .00** -2.29 -.50
*
Week 5 -1.10 .29 .03* -2.14 -.05
*
Week 6 -1.45 .23 .00** -2.27 -.63
Week 1 Week 2 -.30 .19 1.00 -.98 .38
Week 3 -.30 .23 1.00 -1.11 .51
Week 4 -.40 .22 1.00 -1.18 .38
Week 5 -.10 .20 1.00 -.81 .61
Week 6 -.45 .18 .52 -1.09 .19
Week 2 Week 3 .00 .19 1.00 -.67 .67
Week 4 -.10 .20 1.00 -.81 .61
Week 5 .20 .22 1.00 -.59 .99
Week 6 -.15 .18 1.00 -.79 .49
Week 3 Week 4 -.10 .24 1.00 -.94 .74
Week 5 .20 .17 1.00 -.40 .80
Week 6 -.15 .17 1.00 -.73 .43
Week 4 Week 5 .30 .23 1.00 -.51 1.11
Week 6 -.05 .18 1.00 -.69 .59
Week 5 Week 6 -.35 .15 .65 -.87 .17
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The table “indicates that the main effect reflects a significant difference p< .05
between pre (day) and week 1, week 2, week 3, week, week 5 and week 6 at p< 0.01.”
Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear,
quadratic and Cubic trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table
below.
322
Auditory Imagery
Source of Variance SS Df MSS F p

Linear 15.45 1 15.45 22.79 .00*
Six Weeks
Quadratic 8.71 1 8.72 13.95 .00*
Sessions
Cubic 5.21 1 5.21 14.22 .00*

*p< 0.01.
auditory imagery. So, the number of sessions in six weeks could improve the auditory
imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of six weeks auditory imagery
sessions is presented in the given figure 63.
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.1
mean
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
Pre
(Day
1 2 3 4 5 6
1)
Mean 3.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.65
Figure 63: Graphical representation of mean values of six weeks auditory

Imagery Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of six weeks depicts a significant
linear, quadratic and cubic development in the Auditory Imagery Training.
323
Further calculations were done for each week i.e first week to sixth week, to assess
the each session’s change during a particular week’s training.
Table 228: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery for first week’s sessions
Week 1 Mean SD N
Day 1 3.26 1.29 27
Day 2 3.81 1.04 27
Day 3 4.11 .75 27
Day 4 4.44 .97 27
Day 5 4.15 .86 27
Auditory Imagery sessions in first week, i.e first session represents the least value
with the slow and gradual improvement in the auditory imagery training by the last
day of the first week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 3.26 ± 1.29),
day 2 (M= 3.81 ± 1.04), day 3 (M=4.11 ± .75), day 4 (M= 4.44 ± .86) and day 5 (M=
4.15 ± .86).
was computed, the results are presented in the table below.

X² Df Sig.
Auditory
.45 19.36 9 .02* .78 .90 .25
Imagery week 1
*p<0.05.
used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Further repeated
324
measure F test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of
first week.
Week of Auditory Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
21.73 3.13 6.94 7.78 .00*
Auditory
Imagery Error 72.67 93.81 .77
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Auditory Imagery during the sessions of
first week’s training as obtained F = 7.78 at p<0.01. It means that ability to imagine
with auditory in players improved significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
no significant influence of training, is not accepted. To test exact difference in the
days, pairwise comparison was computed, the results are given below.
Table 231: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Auditory Imagery
Training

Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 -.56* .22 .02* -.99 -.11
*
Day 3 -.85 .28 .00** -1.43 -.27
Day 4 -1.18* .24 .00** -1.69 -.68
*
Day 5 -.89 .23 .00** -1.37 -.41
Day 2 Day 3 -.29 .19 .13 -.69 .09
*
Day 4 -.63 .19 .00** -1.03 -.23
Day 5 -.33 .26 .21 -.87 .20
Day 3 Day 4 -.33 .19 .09 -.73 .06
Day 5 -.04 .20 .86 -.45 .38
Day 4 Day 5 .29 .24 .22 -.19 .78
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
325
The table “indicates that the main effect reflects a significant difference p< .05
between day 1 and day 2, day 3, day 4 and day 5.” There is significant difference in
day 2 and day 4 at p< 0.01. Further, the repeated measure within subjects was
analyzed to check the linear trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in
the table below.
Auditory Imagery
First Linear 15.65 1 15.65 18.79 .00**
Week’s Quadratic 5.36 1 5.36 5.16 .03*

Linear 21.65 26 .83
Error Quadratic 27.00 26 1.04
Cubic 10.83 26 .42
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 26) = 18.79 p< 0.01. Therefore
it can be concluded that the number of sessions in first week could improve the
auditory imagery significantly. The graphical representation of the mean values of
first week’s auditory imagery sessions is presented in the figure below.
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
mean
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
Mean 3.26 3.81 4.11 4.44 4.15
Figure 64: Graphical representation of mean values of each session of auditory

326
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s sessions depicts a
significant linear growth.
Table 233: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery for second week’s sessions
Week 2 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.15 .86 27
Day 2 4.00 1.04 27
Day 3 4.48 .75 27
Day 4 4.26 .76 27
Day 5 4.55 .64 27
Auditory Imagery sessions in second week. It can be observed that there is a
improvement in the auditory imagery training scores from the first day of the week to
the last day of the second week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.15
± .86), day 2 (M= 4.00 ± 1.04), day 3 (M= 4.48 ± .75), day 4 (M= 4.26 ± .76) and day
5 (M= 4.55 ± .64).

X² df Sig.
Auditory Imagery
.57 13.84 9 .13* .78 .89 .25
week 2
*p>0.05.
327
between the sessions of second week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
5.73 4 1.43 2.42 .05*
Auditory
*p<0.05.
is significant improvement in the scores of Auditory Imagery during the sessions of
second week’s training as obtained F = 2.42 at p< 0.05. It means that ability to
imagine auditory in players improved significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that
there is no significant influence of training, is not accepted.
Table 236: Pairwise Comparisons among second week’s sessions of Auditory

Imagery Training

(I-J) Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Day 1 Day 2 .15 .26 .58 -.39 .69
Day 3 -.33 .21 .12 -.76 .09
Day 4 -.11 .20 .59 -.53 .30
Day 5 -.41* .18 .03* -.78 -.04
Day 2 Day 3 -.48 .26 .07 -1.01 .05
Day 4 -.26 .23 .27 -.73 .21
Day 5 -.56* .23 .03* -1.04 -.07
Day 3 Day 4 .22 .15 .16 -.09 .54
Day 5 -.07 .16 .65 -.40 .25
Day 4 Day 5 -.29 .17 .09 -.64 .05
*p<0.05.
328
“
between day 1 and day 5.” There is significant difference in day 2 and day 5 at p<
0.05. Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear
trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table below.
of Auditory Imagery
“ SS df MSS f p
Linear 3.11 1 3.11 6.54 .02*
Week 2
Quadratic .07 1 .07 .11 .73
Sessions
Cubic .03 1 .03 .05 .82
Linear 12.38 26 .48

Error (week
2 sessions)
Cubic 17.47 26 .67
*p<0.05.
trend also represent insignificant. Therefore it can be concluded that the number of
sessions in second week could improve the auditory imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of second week’s auditory imagery
session is presented in the given figure.
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
mean
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
Mean 4.15 4 4.48 4.26 4.55

329
The graphical representation of the mean values of the second week’s sessions depicts
a significant linear growth.
Table 238: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery for third week’s sessions
Week 3 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.05 .82 20
Day 2 4.10 1.07 20
Day 3 4.40 .68 20
Day 4 4.30 .92 20
Day 5 4.35 .74 20
Auditory Imagery sessions in week 3, i.e, day 1 (M= 4.05 ± .82), day 2 (M= 4.10 ±
1.07), day 3 (M= 4.40 ± .68), day 4 (M= 4.30 ± .92) and day 5 (M= 4.35 ± .74).
scores, and the results are resented in the table below.

X² dff Sig.
Auditory
.19 28.46 9 .00* .54 .61 .25
Imagery week 3
* p< 0.01.
adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Repeated Measure ANOVA
test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of third week.
330
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Auditory Geisser 1.94 2.15 .90 1.33 .28*
Imagery
Error 27.66 40.82 .68
*p>0.05.
is no significant improvement in the scores of Auditory Imagery during the sessions
of third week training as obtained F = 1.33 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to
imagery auditory in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis
that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted.
Auditory Imagery

Linear 1.28 1 1.28 2.85 .11*
Week 3
Quadratic .23 1 .23 1.97 .18
Sessions
Cubic .02 1 .02 .029 .87
Linear 8.52 19 .45

Error (week
3 sessions)
Cubic 13.18 19 .69
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 19) = 2.85 p> 0.05. further, the
number of sessions in third week could not improve the auditory imagery
significantly.
331
The graphical representation of the mean values of third week’s auditory imagery
sessions is presented in the given figure below.
4.5
4.4
4.3
mean
4.2
4.1
4
Mean 4.05 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.35

The graphical representation of the mean values of the third week’s different sessions
Table 242: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery fourth week sessions
Week 4 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.59 .62 17
Day 2 4.35 .78 17
Day 3 4.41 .79 17
Day 4 4.59 .51 17
Day 5 4.59 .62 17
Auditory Imagery sessions in week 1, i.e first session represents the least value with
the slow and gradual improvement in the auditory imagery training by the last day of
the fourth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.59 ± .62), day 2
332
(M= 4.35 ± .78), day 3 (M= 4.41 ± .79), day 4 (M= 4.59 ± .51) and day 5 (M= 4.59 ±
.62).

X² df Sig.
Auditory
.49 10.07 9 .35* .74 .93 .25
Imagery week 4
*p>0.05.
Table reveals that “the effect of training does not violate significantly the sphericity
assumption, as significant value is greater than 0.05, W= .49, X² = 10.07, p > .05.”
< .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon Greenhouse-Geisser to adjust f score and the
conservative Epsilon should be used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R.
(1992).
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Auditory Geisser .89 4 .22 .62 .65*
Imagery
Error 23.11 47.59 .48
*p>0.05.
of week 4 training as obtained F = .62 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
auditor in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
333
of Auditory Imagery
Fourth Linear .09 1 .09 .60 .45*
Week’s Quadratic .42 1 .42 .94 .35

Linear 2.51 16 .16
Cubic 8.02 16 .50
*p>0.05.
There is “no significant main effect of training f (1, 16) = .60 p> 0.05.” further, the
number of sessions in fourth week could not improve the auditory imagery
significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s auditory imagery
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.59 4.35 4.41 4.59 4.59

334
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s different sessions
changes, which shows an improvement in the scores from day 2 to day 5.
Table 246: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery for fifth week sessions
Week 5 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.38 .59 21
Day 2 4.28 .72 21
Day 3 4.33 .91 21
Day 4 4.23 .89 21
Day 5 4.28 .72 21
Auditory Imagery sessions in fifth week, i.e first session represents the least value
day of the fifth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.38 ± .59),
day 2 (M= 4.28 ± .72), day 3 (M= 4.33 ± .91), day 4 (M= 4.23 ± .89) and day 5 (M=
4.28 ± .72).

X² df Sig.
Auditory Imagery
.16 33.92 9 .00* .55 .62 .25
fifth week
* p<0.01.
been violated, X² (9) = 32.92, p< .01. Therefore, df were corrected using Greenhouse-
335
Geisser estimates of sphericity < 0.75.” Further F test was computed to check the
difference at 0.05 within pre and post trails between the sessions of fifth week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Auditory Geisser .25 2.21 .11 .13 .90*
Imagery
Error 37.75 44.09 .86
*p>0.05.
of fifth week’s training as obtained F = .13 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to
imagine auditory in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis
that there is no significant influence of training, is accepted. Further, the repeated
measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear trend by computing the data.
The finding is presented in the table below.
Auditory Imagery
“ SS df MSS f p
Linear .12 1 .12 .59 .45*
Week 5
Quadratic .03 1 .03 .07 .79
Sessions
Cubic 5.66 1 5.66 .00 1.00
Linear 3.98 20 .19

Error (week
5 sessions)
Cubic 13.40 20 .67
*p>0.05.
There is no significant linear effect of training f (1, 20) = .59 p> 0.05. further, the
number of sessions in fifth week could not improve the auditory imagery
significantly.
336
The graphical representation of the mean values of fifth week’s auditory imagery
sessions is presented in the figure 68.
4.4
4.3
mean
4.2
4.1
Mean 4.38 4.28 4.33 4.23 4.28

shows an insignificant improvement in the scores of imagery.
Table 250: Descriptive Statistics of Auditory Imagery for sixth week’s sessions
Week 6 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.31 .72 22
Day 2 4.27 .77 22
Day 3 4.59 .59 22
Day 4 4.45 .74 22
Day 5 4.68 .48 22
Auditory Imagery sessions in sixth week, i.e first session represents the least value
day of the sixth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.31 ± .72),
day 2 (M = 4.27 ± .77), day 3 (M= 4.59 ± .59), day 4 (M= 4.45 ± .74) and day 5 (M=
4.68 ± .48).
337

X² df Sig.
Auditory
.45 15.59 9 .08* .76 .90 .25
Imagery week 4
*p>0.05.
between the sessions of sixth week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
2.67 4 .67 2.37 .06*
Auditory
*p>0.05.
of week 6 training as obtained F = 2.67 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
auditory in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there
is no significant influence of training on improving the auditory imagery, is accepted.
Later, pairwise comparison was computed to check the point of improvement in the
imagery skills using auditory
338
Table 253: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Auditory Imagery
Training

Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 .04 .15 1.00* -.44 .53
Day 3 -.27 .16 1.00* -.79 .24
Day 4 -.14 .20 1.00* -.76 .49
Day 5 -.36 .14 .170* -.80 .08
Day 2 Day 3 -.32 .18 .89* -.88 .24
Day 4 -.18 .12 1.00* -.57 .21
Day 5 -.41 .14 .09* -.85 .04
Day 3 Day 4 .14 .19 1.00* -.46 .73
Day 5 -.09 .16 1.00* -.59 .41
Day 4 Day 5 -.23 .13 .96* -.64 .18
*p>0.05.
The table indicates that the main effect reflects an insignificant difference p< .05
between the days. Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to
check the linear trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table
below.
Auditory Imagery
“ Source of Variance” SS df MSS f p

Linear 1.82 1 1.82 6.18 .02*
Week 6
Quadratic .01 1 .01 .05 .83
Sessions
Cubic 1.70 1 1.70 .00 1.00
(week 6 Quadratic 5.99 21 .28

*p<0.05.
339
There is significant main linear effect of training f (1, 21) = 6.18 p< 0.05. Therefore it
can be concluded that the number of sessions in sixth week improved the auditory
The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth week’s auditory imagery
session is presented in the figure below.
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.31 4.27 4.59 4.45 4.68

340
Imagery Training Using Vividness
Imagery training’s most important aspect is to imagine the image with very clarity
and noticing each and every thing in the image happening vividly, to check if
gymnasts could imagine the situation vividly, following calculations were done, the
results are presented in the tables below.
Table 255: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery Training sessions for Six
weeks
Week 1 Mean SD N
Pre (Day 1) 4.30 .66 20
Week 1 4.55 .76 20
Week 2 4.70 .57 20
Week 3 4.85 .37 20
Week 4 4.85 .37 20
Week 5 4.85 .37 20
Week 6 4.95 .22 20
The descriptive statistics table reveals the mean and the standard deviation of Vivid
Imagery sessions over the six weeks training, i.e first session represents the least
value with the improvement in the vivid imagery training scores by the last week of
the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 4.30 ± .66), Week 1 (M,
4.55 ± .76), Week 2 (M, 4.70 ± .57), week 3 (M, 4.85 ± .37), week 4 (M, 4.85 ± .37),
week 5 (M, 4.85 ± .37) and in week 6 (M= 4.95 ± .22).
341

X² Df Sig.
Vivid Imagery
.17 29.31 20 .08* .62 .78 .17
six weeks
*p>0.05.
Further F test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of
six weeks.
Weeks of Vivid Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 6.19 6 1.03 4.99 .00*
Vivid Imagery
Error 16.46 61.83 .27
*p< 0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Vivid Imagery during the six weeks
training as obtained F = 4.99 at p<0.01. It means that ability to imagine vividly in
players has developed significantly. So, it shows that there is an influence of Imagery
Training. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of training, is
not accepted.
342
Table 258: Pairwise Comparisons among six week sessions of Vivid Imagery
Training

(I-J) Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
Pre Week 1 -.25 .22 1.0 -1.00 .51
(Day 1) Week 2 -.40 .17 .59 -.99 .19
Week 3 -.55 .18 .16 -1.19 .09
*
Week 4 -.55 .15 .04* -1.09 -.01
*
Week 5 -.55 .13 .01** -1.02 -.08
Week 6 -.65* .15 .00** -1.17 -.12
Week 1 Week 2 -.15 .13 1.00 -.61 .31
Week 3 -.30 .18 1.00 -.93 .33
Week 4 -.30 .16 1.00 -.87 .27
Week 5 -.30 .18 1.00 -.93 .33
Week 6 -.40 .15 .35 -.93 .13
Week 2 Week 3 -.15 .13 1.00 -.61 .31
Week 4 -.15 .11 1.00 -.53 .23
Week 5 -.15 .13 1.00 -.61 .31
Week 6 -.25 .12 1.00 -.68 .18
Week 3 Week 4 .00 .10 1.00 -.36 .36
Week 5 .00 .13 1.00 -.44 .44
Week 6 -.10 .10 1.00 -.45 .25
Week 4 Week 5 .00 .10 1.00 -.36 .36
Week 6 -.10 .10 1.00 -.45 .25
Week 5 Week 6 -.10 .10 1.00 -.45 .25
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
“
between week 4 and week 5 and week 6 at p< 0.01.”
343
Vivid Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS Df MSS F P

Linear 5.21 1 5.21 25.60 .00**
Six Weeks
Quadratic .77 1 .77 3.13 .09*
Sessions
Cubic .13 1 .13 .41 .53*

** p< 0.01, *p>0.05.
There is significant main effect of training f (1, 19) = 25.60 p< 0.01. It can be
vivid imagery. So, the number of sessions in six weeks could improve the vivid
The graphical representation of the mean values of six weeks vivid imagery session is
presented in the table below.
5
4.9
4.8
4.7
mean
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
Pre
(Day
1 2 3 4 5 6
1)
Mean 4.3 4.55 4.7 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.95
Figure 70: Graphical representation of mean values of six weeks vivid Imagery
Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of six weeks imagery training,
depicts a linear development in the Vivid Imagery scores.
344
Further calculations were done for each week i.e week 1 to week 6, to assess the
effect of each session in a particular week, the results of each week are presented
separately in the tables below.
Table 260: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery for first week’s sessions
Week 1 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.37 .63 27
Day 2 4.44 .58 27
Day 3 4.52 .93 27
Day 4 4.55 .57 27
Day 5 4.59 .69 27
and gradual improvement in the vivid imagery training by the last day of the first
week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.37 ± .63), day 2 (M= 4.44 ±
.58), day 3 (M=4.52 ± .93), day 4 (M=4.55 ± .57) and day 5 (M=4.59 ± .69).

X² df Sig.
Vivid Imagery
.73 7.62 9 .57* .87 1.00 .25
first week
*p>0.05.
7.62, p> .05.” Value of Epsilon is > .75, therefore, we have used Epsilon Huynh-Feeldt
345
Further F test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of
first week.
Week of Vivid Imagery Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
.85 4 .21 .58 .68*
Vivid Imagery
Error 38.74 104.00 .37
*p>0.05.
is no significant improvement in the scores of Vivid Imagery during the sessions of
first week’s training as obtained F = .58 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
vividly in players did not improve significantly. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is
Vivid Imagery
“ SS df MSS f p
First Linear .83 1 .83 2.11 .15*

Week’s Quadratic .02 1 .02 .07 .79*
Sessions Cubic .00 1 .00 .00 1.00*
Linear 10.27 26 .39

Cubic 7.40 26 .28
*p>0.05.
346
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 26) = 2.11 p> 0.05. further, the
number of sessions in first week could not improve the vivid imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s vivid imagery sessions
is presented in the given figure.
4.7
4.6
4.5
mean
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.37 4.44 4.52 4.55 4.59
Figure 71: Graphical representation of mean values of each session of vivid

Table 264: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery for second week’s sessions
Week 2 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.70 .54 27
Day 2 4.40 .80 27
Day 3 4.70 .54 27
Day 4 4.62 .63 27
Day 5 4.74 .52 27
Imagery sessions in second week. It can be observed that there is a improvement in
347
the vivid imagery training scores from the first day of the week to the last day of the
week 2. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.70 ± .54), day 2 (M= 4.40
± .80), day 3 (M=4.70 ± .54), day 4 (M=4.62 ± .63) and day 5 (M=4.74 ± .52).
Mauchly'
Within Epsilon
s X² Df Sig.
Subjects Effect Greenhouse- Huynh- Lower-
W
Geisser Feldt bound
Vivid Imagery
.49 17.27 9 .04* .77 .88 .25
week 2
*p<0.05.
used to adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Repeated Measure
ANOVA test was computed to check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of
second week.
Source SS Df MS F P
Huynh-Feldt
1.96 3.07 .64 1.84 .15*
Vivid Imagery
Error 27.64 91.65 .30
*p>0.05.
first week’s training as obtained F = 1.84 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
348
of Vivid Imagery
“ Source of Variance” SS df MSS f p
Second Linear .24 1 .24 .69 .41*
Week’s Quadratic .38 1 .38 2.36 .14*

Sessions Cubic .45 1 .45 1.32 .26*
Linear 8.96 26 .34
Cubic 8.85 26 .34
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 26) = .69 p>0.05. further, the
number of sessions in first week could not improve the vivid imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of first week’s vivid imagery sessions
is presented below in the figure.
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
mean
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
Mean 4.7 4.4 4.7 4.62 4.74

349
The graphical representation of the mean values of second week’s different sessions
depicting a linear growth but with an insignificant margin.
Table 268: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery for third week’s sessions
Week 3 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.80 .41 20
Day 2 4.50 .69 20
Day 3 4.80 .41 20
Day 4 4.70 .57 20
Day 5 4.80 .41 20
Imagery sessions in week 3, i.e, day 1 (M= 4.80 ± .41), day 2 (M= 4.50 ± .69), day 3
(M=4.80 ± .41), day 4 (M= 4.70 ± .57) and day 5 (M=4.80 ± .41).
Within
Mauchly's Epsilon
Subjects X² df Sig.
Vivid Imagery
.18 29.50 9 .00* .59 .68 .25
week 3
* p< 0.01.
adjust the df as recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). Further F test was computed to
check the difference at 0.05 between the sessions of third week.
350
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 1.36 2.36 .58 2.11 .13*
Vivid Imagery
Error 12.24 44.89 .27
*p>0.05.
third week’s training as obtained F = 2.11 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear,
quadratic and Cubic trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table
below.
Vivid Imagery
“Source of Variance” SS df MSS F P

Linear .08 1 .08 1.15 .30*
Week 3
Quadratic .23 1 .23 1.42 .25*
Sessions
Cubic .32 1 .32 .97 .34*
Linear 1.32 19 .07

Error (week
3 sessions)
Cubic 6.28 19 .33
*p>0.05.
There is in significant linear effect of training f (1, 19) = 1.15 p> 0.05. further, the
number of sessions in third week could not improve the vivid imagery significantly.
351
The graphical representation of the mean values of third week’s vivid imagery session
is presented in the figure below.
4.9
4.8
4.7
mean
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
Mean 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.8

Table 272: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery fourth week sessions
Week 4 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.76 .44 17
Day 2 4.76 .44 17
Day 3 4.76 .44 17
Day 4 4.88 .33 17
Day 5 4.88 .33 17
Imagery sessions in fourth week, i.e first session represents the least value with the
slow and gradual improvement in the vivid imagery training by the last day of the
fourth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.76 ± .44), day 2 (M=
352

X² df Sig.
Vivid Imagery
.33 15.63 9 .07* .70 .87 .25
week 4
*p>0.05.
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser .28 4 .07 .79 .54*
Vivid Imagery
Error 5.72 45.15 .13
*p>0.05.
fourth week’s training as obtained F = .79 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
353
of Vivid Imagery
Forth Linear .21 1 .21 1.55 .23*
Week’s Quadratic .02 1 .02 .32 .58*

Sessions Cubic .02 1 .02 .24 .63*
Linear 2.19 16 .137
Error Quadratic .84 16 .05
Cubic 1.58 16 .10
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 16) = 1.55 p> 0.05. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the number of sessions in fourth week could not improve the
vivid imagery significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s vivid imagery
session is presented in the figure given below.
4.9
4.8
mean
4.7
4.6
4.5
Mean 4.76 4.76 4.76 4.88 4.88

The graphical representation of the mean values of fourth week’s different sessions
354
Table 276: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery for fifth week sessions
Week 5 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.85 .36 21
Day 2 4.67 .66 21
Day 3 4.80 .40 21
Day 4 4.76 .54 21
Day 5 4.85 .36 21
Imagery sessions in fifth week, i.e first session represents the least value with the slow
and gradual improvement in the vivid imagery training by the last day of the fifth
week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.85 ± .36), day 2 (M= 4.67 ±
.66), day 3 (M=4.80 ± .40), day 4 (M=4.76 ± .54) and day 5 (M=4.85 ± .36).

X² df Sig.
Vivid Imagery
.45 14.52 9 .11* .74 .88 .25
fifth week
*p>0.05.
355
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser .53 4 .13 .66 .62*
Vivid Imagery
Error 16.27 59.24 .27
*p>0.05.
fifth week’s training as obtained F = .66 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
Vivid Imagery
Fifth Linear .02 1 .02 .13 .72*
Week’s Quadratic .22 1 .22 1.42 .25*

Sessions Cubic .08 1 .08 .26 .62*
Linear 2.98 20 .15
Cubic 5.92 20 .30
*p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 20) = .13 p> 0.05. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the number of sessions in fifth week could not improve the vivid
imagery significantly. The graphical representation of the mean values of fifth week’s
vivid imagery sessions is presented in the figure below.
356
4.9
4.8
mean
4.7
4.6
4.5
Mean 4.85 4.67 4.8 4.76 4.85

Table 280: Descriptive Statistics of Vivid Imagery for sixth week’s sessions
Week 6 Mean SD N
Day 1 4.77 .43 22
Day 2 4.95 .21 22
Day 3 4.95 .21 22
Day 4 4.82 .39 22
Day 5 4.95 .21 22
Imagery sessions in sixth week, i.e first session represents the least value with the
slow and gradual improvement in the vivid imagery training by the last day of the
sixth week. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M= 4.77 ± .43), day 2 (M =
4.95 ± .21), day 3 (M= 4.95 ± .21), day 4 (M=4.82 ± .39) and day 5 (M=4.95 ± .21).
From the descriptive, it is clear that the means get larger over occasions. The table of
Mauchly has been ignored, as it could not produce the mauchly and chai square test
because of insufficient residual degrees of freedom. So repeated measure ANOVA
output for the interpretation was considered.
357
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser .69 4 .17 2.37 .06*
Vivid Imagery
Error 6.11 48.18 .13
*p>0.05.
sixth week’s training as obtained F = 2.37 at p > 0.05. It means that ability to imagine
Vivid Imagery

Linear .11 1 .11 1.34 .26*
Week 6
Quadratic .08 1 .08 .70 .41*
Sessions
Cubic .45 1 .45 8.33 .00**
Linear 1.79 21 .08

Error (week
6 sessions)
Cubic 1.14 21 .05
** p< 0.01, *p>0.05.
There is no significant main effect of training f (1, 21) = 1.34 p> 0.05. Therefore it
can be concluded that the number of sessions in sixth week could not improve the
vivid imagery significantly. The graphical representation of the mean values of sixth
week’s vivid imagery sessions is presented in the figure given below.
358
4.9
4.8
mean
4.7
4.6
4.5
Mean 4.85 4.67 4.8 4.76 4.85

359
Section VI – Effect of Attention Training
As attention is essential for performing one’s best, the experimental group subjects
were imparted training to improve their attentional skills. For developing the
attention ability of the Gymnasts, the scholar had chosen various techniques i.e
Attention grid for first two weeks, relevant cues for next two weeks and lastly shifting
attention for the last two weeks. All the three methods were incorporated in the
program, the data collected from the subjects in each session for attention grid
exercise were recorded by the scholar for the purpose of evaluation and the relevant
cues were also analyzed qualitatively.
For evaluating the effect of attention training, Repeated measure ANOVA was
calculated, Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the
trend by computing the data. For analyzing the relevant cues, qualitative content
analysis was executed, the results are presented from table No. 283 to table No. 307.
Attention Grid
The subjects respond to the attention grid for the first two weeks, the subjects
followed the instructions of the scholar and practiced the attention grid for improving
the attention ability. The descriptive statistics and repeated measure were applied, the
findings are presented from table no. 283 to table No. 287.
360
Table 283: Descriptive Statistics of Attention Training sessions using attention

grid for two weeks
Days Mean SD N
Day 1 6.58 2.72 24
Day 2 7.12 2.88 24
Day 3 7.12 3.25 24
Day 4 8.00 3.71 24
Day 5 7.08 2.78 24
Day 6 11.25 3.54 24
Day 7 7.08 3.29 24
Day 8 10.96 3.25 24
Day 9 8.58 3.06 24
Day 10 12.71 4.79 24
Attention grid sessions over the two weeks training of attention, i.e first session
represents the least value with the improvement in the attention grid scores by the last
week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 6.58 ± 2.72),
day 2 (M, 7.12 ± 2.88), day 3 (M, 7.12 ± 3.25), day 4 (M, 8. ± 3.71), day 5 (M, 7.08 ±
2.78), day 6 (M, 11.25 ± 3.54) day 7 (M= 7.08 ± 3.29), day 8 (M, 10.96 ± 3.25), day 9
(M, 8.58 ± 3.06) and day 10 (M, 12.71 ± 4.79).
To test if there is a significant difference among the attention grid sessions’ scores,
repeated measure was computed and the results are presented in the table below.

X² Df Sig.
Attention grid
.24 28.23 44 .97* .73 1.00 .11
two weeks Training
*p>0.05.
361

adjusted to check the difference at 0.05 between the attention grid sessions for ten
days.
Table 285: Repeated Measure ANOVA for Comparison of Means during Two
Weeks of Attention grid Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Geisser 1027.60 9 114.18 14.65 .00*
Attention grid
Error 1613.60 151.64 10.64
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Attention grid during the two weeks
training as obtained F = 14.65 at p < 0.01. It means that ability of attention using
attention grid in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of attention
Training. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of attention
grid training, is not accepted.
adjustment was further computed. The results is presented in the table below.
362
Table 286: Pairwise Comparisons among two week’s sessions of Attention Grid
Training

MD Std.
Bound Bound
Day 1 Day 2 -.54 .67 1.00 -3.05 1.96
Day 3 -.54 .65 1.00 -2.97 1.88
Day 4 -1.42 .678 1.00 -3.94 1.11
Day 5 -.50 .65 1.00 -2.91 1.91
*
Day 6 -4.67 .78 .00** -7.58 -1.75
Day 7 -.50 .79 1.00 -3.45 2.45
*
Day 8 -4.37 .73 .00** -7.12 -1.63
Day 9 -2.00 .75 .65 -4.82 .82
*
Day 10 -6.12 .99 .00** -9.84 -2.40
Day 2 Day 3 .00 .71 1.00 -2.66 2.66
Day 4 -.87 .83 1.00 -3.97 2.23
Day 5 .04 .77 1.00 -2.82 2.91
*
Day 6 -4.12 .76 .00** -6.95 -1.29
Day 7 .04 .76 1.00 -2.79 2.87
*
Day 8 -3.83 .71 .00** -6.47 -1.19
Day 9 -1.46 .82 1.00 -4.54 1.62
*
Day 10 -5.58 .92 .00** -9.03 -2.13
Day 3 Day 4 -.87 .68 1.00 -3.42 1.67
Day 5 .04 .58 1.00 -2.14 2.22
*
Day 6 -4.12 .83 .00** -7.23 -1.02
Day 7 .04 .70 1.00 -2.58 2.66
*
Day 8 -3.83 .66 .00** -6.30 -1.36
Day 9 -1.46 .79 1.00 -4.39 1.48
*
Day 10 -5.58 .85 .00** -8.75 -2.42
Day 4 Day 5 .92 .75 1.00 -1.87 3.71
Day 6 -3.25 .91 .08 -6.66 .16
Day 7 .92 .80 1.00 -2.07 3.89
*
Day 8 -2.96 .75 .03* -5.75 -.16
Day 9 -.58 .92 1.00 -3.99 2.83
*
Day 10 -4.71 .93 .00** -8.18 -1.231
*
Day 5 Day 6 -4.17 .73 .00** -6.88 -1.45
Day 7 .00 .75 1.00 -2.80 2.80
*
Day 8 -3.87 .62 .00** -6.19 -1.56
Day 9 -1.50 .68 1.00 -4.02 1.02
*
Day 10 -5.62 .99 .00** -9.31 -1.93
363
Table 286 continue: Pairwise Comparisons among two week’s sessions of

Attention Grid Training

MD Std.
Bound Bound
Day 6 Day 7 4.17* .83 .00** 1.07 7.26
Day 8 .29 .77 1.00 -2.56 3.15
Day 9 2.67 .81 .14 -.35 5.69
Day 10 -1.46 1.15 1.00 -5.73 2.82
*
Day 7 Day 8 -3.87 .73 .00** -6.59 -1.15
Day 9 -1.50 .77 1.00 -4.37 1.37
*
Day 10 -5.62 1.03 .00** -9.45 -1.79
Day 8 Day 9 2.37 .66 .07 -.10 4.85
Day 10 -1.75 1.00 1.00 -5.48 1.98
*
Day 9 Day 10 -4.12 1.11 .05* -8.24 -.01
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The table “indicates that the main effect reflects a significant difference” p< .05 of day
1, day 2 and day 3 with day 6, day 8 and day 10. Difference of day 4 and day 5 with
day 8 & day 10. Difference between day 6 and day 7. Significant difference between
day 7 and day 8, day 10. Day 9 is significantly different with day 10 at p< 0.05.
Table 287: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for two weeks sessions of
Attention Grid Training

Linear 536.85 1 536.85 63.34 .00**
Two Weeks
Quadratic 20.04 1 20.04 2.11 .16*
Sessions
Cubic 18.39 1 18.39 1.69 .21*
Error Linear 194.93 23 8.47
(Two weeks Quadratic 218.68 23 9.51

sessions) Cubic 250.31 23 10.88
** p< 0.01, *p>0.05.
364
effect insignificant at p< 0.05. It can be concluded that two weeks attention grid
training had a linear effect of improvement in the attention. So, the number of
sessions in two weeks could improve the attention significantly.
The graphical presentation of the mean values of two weeks attention training
sessions using attention grid is presented below in the table.
12.9
12.4
11.9
11.4
10.9
10.4
mean
9.9
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean 6.5 7.1 7.1 8 7.0 11. 7.0 11 8.5 12.
Figure 77: Graphical representation of mean values of Two weeks Attention

Grid Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of two week’s attention grid scores
depicts a significant linear development in the Attention of the Gymnasts.
Shifting Attention Training
During the third and the fourth week, shifting attention technique was taught to the
Gymnasts to improve the attention and ability to transfer the attention, which included
body awareness, concentration on mind, narrowing attention and auditory attention,
which indeed are essential aspect for the Gymnast’s performance. The results of the
evaluation of scores are presented in the tables below.
365
Table 288: Descriptive Statistics of Shifting Attention (Body awareness) Training

sessions of two weeks
Days Mean SD N
Day 1 3.63 .90 19
Day 2 4.32 .82 19
Day 3 4.05 .78 19
Day 4 4.21 .71 19
Day 5 4.42 .77 19

Day 6 4.63 .60 19
Day 7 4.53 .84 19
Day 8 4.26 .93 19
Day 9 4.58 .69 19
Day 10 4.74 .56 19
The descriptive statistics table reveals the mean and the standard deviation of shifting
Attention sessions over the two weeks training of body awareness, i.e first session
represents the least value with the improvement in the attention on body awareness
scores by the last week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1
(M, 3.63 ± .90), day 2 (M, 4.32 ± .82), day 3 (M, 4.05 ± .78), day 4 (M, 4.21 ± .71),
day 5 (M, 4.42 ± .77), day 6 (M, 4.63 ± .60) day 7 (M= 4.53 ± .84), day 8 (M, 4.26 ±
.93), day 9 (M, 4.58 ± .69) and day 10 (M, 4.74 ± .56).
Test of sphericity was computed to test the significant difference among the Shifting
attention using body awareness scores of each session, and the results are presented in
the table below.

X² Df Sig.
Attention
.01 79.32 44 .00* .43 .55 .11
(Body awareness)
* p< 0.01.
366
been violated, X² (44) = 79.32, p< .01. < .75, Therefore, we have used Epsilon
between the two week’s sessions of attention.
Weeks of Shifting Attention (Body awareness) Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Body awareness Geisser 18.02 3.83 4.71 5.88 .00*
(Two Weeks)
Error 55.18 68.86 .80
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Attention body awareness during the two
weeks training as obtained F = 5.88 at p < 0.01. It means that ability of attention on
body awareness in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of
attention Training. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of
attention training, is not accepted.
367
Table 291: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of body awareness
Attention Training

(I-J) Error
Day 1 Day 2 -.68* .17 .04* -1.35 -.02
Day 3 -.42 .21 1.00 -1.22 .38
Day 4 -.58 .25 1.00 -1.53 .37
Day 5 -.79 .26 .32 -1.79 .22
*
Day 6 -1.00 .24 .03* -1.94 -.06
Day 7 -.89 .26 .15 -1.92 .13
Day 8 -.63 .29 1.00 -1.79 .52
Day 9 -.95 .26 .08 -1.95 .06
*
Day 10 -1.11 .24 .01** -2.04 -.17
Day 2 Day 3 .26 .150 1.00 -.32 .84
Day 4 .11 .17 1.00 -.55 .76
Day 5 -.11 .19 1.00 -.82 .61
Day 6 -.32 .20 1.00 -1.10 .47
Day 7 -.21 .24 1.00 -1.13 .71
Day 8 .05 .29 1.00 -1.08 1.18
Day 9 -.26 .21 1.00 -1.09 .57
Day 10 -.42 .19 1.00 -1.17 .32
Day 3 Day 4 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 5 -.37 .17 1.00 -1.04 .31
Day 6 -.58 .16 .08 -1.19 .04
Day 7 -.47 .16 .37 -1.09 .15
Day 8 -.21 .21 1.00 -1.03 .61
Day 9 -.53 .18 .37 -1.21 .16
*
Day 10 -.68 .13 .00** -1.20 -.17
Day 4 Day 5 -.21 .12 1.00 -.69 .26
Day 6 -.42 .14 .33 -.96 .12
Day 7 -.32 .17 1.00 -.98 .35
Day 8 -.05 .22 1.00 -.91 .81
Day 9 -.37 .16 1.00 -.98 .24
*
Day 10 -.53 .12 .01 -.98 -.07
Day 5 Day 6 -.21 .15 1.00 -.77 .35
Day 7 -.11 .17 1.00 -.76 .55
Day 8 .16 .22 1.00 -.69 1.01
Day 9 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 10 -.32 .13 1.00 -.83 .20
368
Table 291 continue: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of body
awareness Attention Training

(I-J) Error
Day 6 Day 7 .11 .15 1.00 -.48 .69
Day 8 .37 .17 1.00 -.31 1.05
Day 9 .05 .16 1.00 -.57 .68
Day 10 -.10 .11 1.00 -.51 .30
Day 7 Day 8 .26 .10 .93 -.14 .66
Day 9 -.05 .18 1.00 -.75 .64
Day 10 -.21 .12 1.00 -.69 .27
Day 8 Day 9 -.32 .22 1.00 -1.16 .53
Day 10 -.47 .18 .69 -1.16 .21
Day 9 Day 10 -.16 .12 1.00 -.60 .29
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
The table indicates that the main effect reflects a significant difference p< .05 of day 1
with day 2 and day 6. Difference of day 1 and day 3 with day 10.
body awareness Attention Training
Body Linear 11.29 1 11.29 11.76 .00**
awareness Quadratic 1.08 1 1.08 2.27 .15*

Sessions Cubic 1.18 1 1.18 2.75 .12*
(two week Quadratic 8.54 18 .48

** p< 0.01, *p>0.05.
369
concluded that two week’s attention training had a linear effect of improvement in the
body awareness. So, the number of sessions in two weeks could improve the attention
of body awareness significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of two week’s body awareness
attention training sessions is presented below in the figure.
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
mean
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean 3.63 4.32 4.05 4.21 4.42 4.63 4.53 4.26 4.58 4.74
Figure 78: Graphical representation of mean values of two weeks body

The graphical representation of the mean values of two week’s body awareness,
attention scores depicts a significant linear development in the Attention of the
players.
370
Table 293: Descriptive Statistics of Shifting Attention (concentration on mind)

Training sessions for two weeks
Days Mean SD N
Day 1 3.74 .99 19
Day 2 3.69 .88 19
Day 3 4.00 .67 19
Day 4 3.89 .74 19
Day 5 4.32 .67 19
Day 6 4.47 .77 19
Day 7 4.21 .79 19
Day 8 4.58 .61 19
Day 9 4.31 .75 19
Day 10 4.47 .77 19
Attention sessions over the two weeks training of body awareness, i.e first session to
the last training sessions. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 3.74 ± .99),
day 2 (M, 3.69 ± .88), day 3 (M, 4.00 ± .67), day 4 (M, 3.89 ± .74), day 5 (M, 4.32 ±
.67), day 6 (M, 4.47 ± .77) day 7 (M= 4.21 ± .79), day 8 (M, 4.58 ± .61), day 9 (M,
4.31 ± .75) and day 10 (M, 4.47 ± .77).

X² df Sig.
Attention
.02 58.82 44 .08* .47 .63 .11
(concentration)
*p<0.05.
371
recommended by Girden, E. R. (1992). And the f was computed by considering the
Weeks of Shifting Attention (concentration) Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Concentration Geisser 17.56 9 1.95 6.34 .00*
(Two Weeks)
Error 49.84 75.99 .66
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of Attention concentration during the two
weeks training as obtained F = 6.34 at p<0.01. It means that ability of attention on
concentration in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of attention
Training. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of attention
training, is not accepted.
372
Table 296: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of concentration on

mind Attention Training

MD Std.
(I-J) Error
Day 1 Day 2 .05 .16 1.00 -.57 .68
Day 3 -.26 .18 1.00 -.98 .45
Day 4 -.16 .19 1.00 -.89 .58
Day 5 -.58 .25 1.00 -1.53 .37
Day 6 -.74 .24 .29 -1.67 .19
Day 7 -.47 .25 1.00 -1.43 .48
Day 8 -.84 .24 .13 -1.79 .11
Day 9 -.58 .19 .34 -1.32 .17
Day 10 -.74 .25 .41 -1.71 .24
Day 2 Day 3 -.32 .17 1.00 -.98 .35
Day 4 -.21 .14 1.00 -.77 .35
Day 5 -.63 .23 .63 -1.53 .27
Day 6 -.79 .21 .07 -1.61 .02
Day 7 -.53 .22 1.00 -1.38 .33
*
Day 8 -.89 .20 .01** -1.67 -.12
Day 9 -.63 .17 .09 -1.31 .04
*
Day 10 -.79 .19 .04* -1.55 -.03
Day 3 Day 4 .11 .15 1.00 -.48 .69
Day 5 -.32 .22 1.00 -1.16 .52
Day 6 -.47 .19 1.00 -1.22 .27
Day 7 -.21 .18 1.00 -.91 .49
Day 8 -.58 .18 .19 -1.26 .10
Day 9 -.32 .15 1.00 -.91 .28
Day 10 -.47 .19 1.00 -1.22 .27
Day 4 Day 5 -.42 .17 1.00 -1.10 .26
Day 6 -.58 .19 .34 -1.32 .17
Day 7 -.32 .19 1.00 -1.05 .41
Day 8 -.68 .19 .08 -1.41 .04
Day 9 -.42 .16 .73 -1.04 .19
Day 10 -.58 .18 .19 -1.26 .10
Day 5 Day 6 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 7 .11 .19 1.00 -.61 .82
Day 8 -.26 .17 1.00 -.91 .39
Day 9 .00 .15 1.00 -.59 .59
Day 10 -.16 .16 1.00 -.77 .45
373
Table 296 continue: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of

concentration on mind Attention Training

MD Std.
(I-J) Error
Day 6 Day 7 .26 .15 1.00 -.32 .84
Day 8 -.11 .11 1.00 -.51 .30
Day 9 .16 .11 1.00 -.29 .60
Day 10 .00 .11 1.00 -.42 .42
Day 7 Day 8 -.37 .14 .67 -.89 .16
Day 9 -.10 .13 1.00 -.61 .39
Day 10 -.26 .13 1.00 -.76 .24
Day 8 Day 9 .26 .13 1.00 -.24 .76
Day 10 .11 .11 1.00 -.30 .51
Day 9 Day 10 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
with day 8 and day 10.
Further, the repeated measure within subjects was analyzed to check the linear Cubic
trend by computing the data. The finding is presented in the table below.
Table 297: Repeated measure within subject Analysis for two weeks Shifting
Attention (concentration) Training
Body Linear 13.05 1 13.05 15.11 .00**
awareness Quadratic 1.12 1 1.12 3.36 .08*

Sessions Cubic .22 1 .22 .91 .35*

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
374
concluded that two week’s attention training had a linear effect of improvement in the
concentration. So, the number of sessions in two weeks could improve the attention of
concentration on mind significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks body awareness,
attention training sessions is presented in the figure below.
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
mean
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean 3.74 3.69 4 3.89 4.32 4.47 4.21 4.58 4.31 4.47
Figure 79: Graphical representation of mean values of two weeks

(Concentration) attention Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks body awareness,
attention scores depicts a significant linear development in the Attention of the
players.
375
Table 298: Descriptive Statistics of Shifting Attention (narrow) Training sessions

of two weeks
Days Mean SD N
Day 1 3.74 .81 19
Day 2 3.89 .81 19
Day 3 4.21 .71 19
Day 4 4.11 .66 19
Day 5 4.21 .85 19
Day 6 4.31 .67 19
Day 7 4.26 .73 19
Day 8 4.42 .77 19
Day 9 4.42 .69 19
Day 10 4.52 .61 19
Attention sessions over the two weeks training for narrowing attention, i.e first
session represents the least value with the improvement in the narrow attention scores
by the last week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 3.74
± .81), day 2 (M, 3.89 ± .81), day 3 (M, 4.21 ± .71), day 4 (M, 4.11 ± .66), day 5 (M,
4.21 ± .85), day 6 (M, 4.31 ± .67) day 7 (M= 4.26 ± .73), day 8 (M, 4.42 ± .77), day 9
(M, 4.42 ± .69) and day 10 (M, 4.52 ± .61).

X² Df Sig.
Attention
.00 94.89 44 .00* .50 .69 .11
(Narrowing)
* p< 0.01.
376
been violated, X² (44) = 94.89, p< .01. Therefore, df “were corrected using
Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity = 0.50.”
Weeks of Shifting Attention (narrow attention) Training
Source of Variance SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Narrow Attention Geisser 10.21 4.50 2.27 4.81 .00*
Greenhouse-Geisser
(Two Weeks) Error 38.19 80.98 .47
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of narrow Attention during the two weeks
training as obtained F = 4.81 at p < 0.01. It means that ability of narrowing attention
in players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of attention Training.
Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of attention training, is
not accepted.
377
Table 301: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of body awareness
Attention Training

(I-J) Error
Day 1 Day 2 -.16 .19 1.00 -.90 .58
Day 3 -.47 .16 .37 -1.09 .15
Day 4 -.37 .17 1.00 -1.05 .31
Day 5 -.47 .21 1.00 -1.28 .33
*
Day 6 -.58 .14 .03* -1.12 -.04
Day 7 -.53 .23 1.00 -1.43 .38
Day 8 -.68 .22 .25 -1.53 .16
Day 9 -.68 .20 .15 -1.47 .10
*
Day 10 -.79 .18 .02* -1.49 -.09
Day 2 Day 3 -.32 .17 1.00 -.98 .35
Day 4 -.21 .15 1.00 -.77 .35
Day 5 -.32 .22 1.00 -1.16 .53
Day 6 -.42 .18 1.00 -1.10 .26
Day 7 -.37 .17 1.00 -1.05 .31
Day 8 -.53 .18 .37 -1.21 .16
Day 9 -.53 .16 .18 -1.15 .09
Day 10 -.63 .17 .09 -1.31 .04
Day 3 Day 4 .11 .13 1.00 -.40 .61
Day 5 .00 .15 1.00 -.59 .59
Day 6 -.10 .13 1.00 -.61 .39
Day 7 -.05 .19 1.00 -.81 .70
Day 8 -.21 .16 1.00 -.85 .42
Day 9 -.21 .16 1.00 -.85 .42
Day 10 -.32 .13 1.00 -.83 .20
Day 4 Day 5 -.11 .15 1.00 -.69 .48
Day 6 -.21 .15 1.00 -.77 .35
Day 7 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 8 -.32 .15 1.00 -.91 .28
Day 9 -.32 .15 1.00 -.91 .28
Day 10 -.42 .14 .33 -.96 .12
Day 5 Day 6 -.11 .13 1.00 -.61 .40
Day 7 -.05 .12 1.00 -.52 .41
Day 8 -.21 .12 1.00 -.69 .27
Day 9 -.21 .16 1.00 -.85 .42
Day 10 -.32 .13 1.00 -.83 .20
378
Table 301 continue: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of body

(I-J) Error
Day 6 Day 7 .05 .16 1.00 -.57 .68
Day 8 -.11 .13 1.00 -.61 .39
Day 9 -.11 .13 1.00 -.61 .39
Day 10 -.21 .09 1.00 -.58 .16
Day 7 Day 8 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 9 -.16 .16 1.00 -.77 .45
Day 10 -.26 .15 1.00 -.84 .32
Day 8 Day 9 .00 .08 1.00 -.29 .29
Day 10 -.11 .07 1.00 -.39 .18
Day 9 Day 10 -.11 .07 1.00 -.39 .17
*p<0.05.
with day 6 and day 10.
narrow Attention
Body Linear 8.88 1 8.88 15.68 .00**
awareness Quadratic .38 1 .38 1.28 .27*

Sessions Cubic .33 1 .33 2.46 .13*

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
379
concluded that two weeks attention training had a linear effect of improvement in the
narrowing attention. So, the number of sessions in two weeks could improve the
narrow attention significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks narrow attention
training sessions is presented in the figure below.
5
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
mean
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean 3.74 3.89 4.21 4.11 4.21 4.31 4.26 4.42 4.42 4.52
Figure 80: Graphical representation of mean values of two weeks narrow

attention Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks Narrow attention scores
depicts a significant linear development in the Attention of the players.
380
Table 303: Descriptive Statistics of Shifting Attention (auditory) Training

sessions of two weeks
Days Mean SD N
Day 1 3.95 .91 19
Day 2 4.37 .76 19
Day 3 4.37 .76 19
Day 4 4.37 .59 19
Day 5 4.48 .61 19

Day 6 4.48 .84 19
Day 7 4.48 .70 19
Day 8 4.53 .61 19
Day 9 4.37 .68 19
Day 10 4.63 .59 19
Attention sessions over the two weeks training of listening skills, i.e first session
represents the least value with the improvement in the attention using auditory scores
by the last week of the training. Numerical representation of the data, day 1 (M, 3.95
± .91), day 2 (M, 4.37 ± .76), day 3 (M, 4.37 ± .76), day 4 (M, 4.37 ± .59), day 5 (M,
4.48 ± .61), day 6 (M, 4.46 ± .84) day 7 (M= 4.48 ± .70), day 8 (M, 4.53 ± .61), day 9
(M, 4.37 ± .68) and day 10 (M, 4.63 ± .59).

X² Df Sig.
Attention (Body
.00 89.45 44 .00* .49 .67 .11
awareness)
* p< 0.01.
381
been violated, X² (44) = 89.45, p< .01. Therefore, df were corrected using
Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity <0.75. Further F test was computed by
considering the Epsilon of Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted to check the difference at
0.05 between the sessions of attention using auditory’s two weeks scores.
Weeks of Shifting Attention (auditory) Training
Source SS Df MS F P
Greenhouse-
Body awareness Geisser 5.60 4.43 1.26 3.63 .01*
Greenhouse-Geisser
(Two Weeks) Error 55.18 68.86 .80
*p<0.01.
is significant improvement in the scores of listening Attention during the two weeks
training as obtained F = 3.63 at p < 0.01. It means that ability of listening attention in
players has developed significantly. So, there is influence of attention Training. Thus,
the null hypothesis that there is no significant influence of attention training, is not
accepted.
382
Table 306: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of listening

Attention Training

MD Std.
(I-J) Error
Day 1 Day 2 -.42 .16 .73 -1.04 .19
Day 3 -.42 .14 .33 -.96 .12
Day 4 -.42 .16 .73 -1.04 .19
*
Day 5 -.53 .12 .01** -.98 -.07
Day 6 -.53 .16 .18 -1.15 .09
*
Day 7 -.53 .12 .01** -.98 -.07
Day 8 -.58 .16 .08 -1.19 .04
Day 9 -.42 .16 .73 -1.04 .19
*
Day 10 -.68 .17 .04* -1.35 -.02
Day 2 Day 3 .00 .15 1.00 -.59 .59
Day 4 .00 .13 1.00 -.51 .51
Day 5 -.11 .13 1.00 -.61 .40
Day 6 -.11 .20 1.00 -.88 .67
Day 7 -.11 .15 1.00 -.69 .48
Day 8 -.16 .12 1.00 -.60 .29
Day 9 .00 .19 1.00 -.73 .73
Day 10 -.26 .13 1.00 -.76 .24
Day 3 Day 4 .00 .11 1.00 -.42 .42
Day 5 -.11 .11 1.00 -.51 .30
Day 6 -.11 .13 1.00 -.61 .40
Day 7 -.11 .07 1.00 -.39 .18
Day 8 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 9 .00 .15 1.00 -.59 .59
Day 10 -.26 .17 1.00 -.92 .39
Day 4 Day 5 -.11 .07 1.00 -.39 .17
Day 6 -.11 .15 1.00 -.69 .48
Day 7 -.11 .10 1.00 -.51 .30
Day 8 -.16 .09 1.00 -.49 .17
Day 9 .00 .13 1.00 -.51 .51
Day 10 -.26 .10 .93 -.66 .14
Day 5 Day 6 .00 .13 1.00 -.51 .51
Day 7 .00 .08 1.00 -.30 .29
Day 8 -.05 .09 1.00 -.41 .31
Day 9 .11 .13 1.00 -.40 .61
383
Table 306 continue: Pairwise Comparisons among two weeks sessions of listening
Attention Training

MD Std.
(I-J) Error
Day 10 -.16 .12 1.00 -.60 .29
Day 6 Day 7 .00 .11 1.00 -.42 .42
Day 8 -.05 .16 1.00 -.68 .57
Day 9 .11 .13 1.00 -.39 .61
Day 10 -.16 .17 1.00 -.84 .52
Day 7 Day 8 -.05 .12 1.00 -.52 .41
Day 9 .11 .11 1.00 -.30 .51
Day 10 -.16 .14 1.00 -.69 .38
Day 8 Day 9 .16 .14 1.00 -.38 .69
Day 10 -.11 .07 1.00 -.39 .18
Day 9 Day 10 -.26 .13 1.00 -.76 .24
** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
with day 5, day 7 and day 10.
auditory Attention
“ SS df MSS f p
Body Linear 3.04 1 3.04 9.76 .01**
awareness Quadratic .74 1 .74 3.44 .08*

Sessions Cubic .88 1 .88 5.49 .03*

** p< 0.01, *p<0.05.
384
concluded that two weeks attention training had a linear effect of improvement in the
listening attention. So, the number of sessions in two weeks could improve the
listening attention significantly.
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks auditory attention
training sessions is presented in the figure below.
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
mean
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Mean 3.95 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.48 4.48 4.48 4.53 4.37 4.63
Figure 81: Graphical representation of mean values of two weeks listening

attention Training
The graphical representation of the mean values of two weeks, auditory attention
scores depicts a significant linear development in the Attention of the players.
Relevant Cues
Gymnastics is a close skill sport by nature, in which execution is very vital aspect of
performance. Therefore apart from body awareness, amplitude is also necessary to
perform the movement to its fullest range. In the present study, gymnast were
instructed to use verbal and kinesthetic cues to focus their concentration on and to
trigger for that cue, the research scholar instructed the gymnasts to use the cues during
imagery and employ it in the real world during their gymnastics training to see the
benefits. The statistical benefits of using the cues has been noticed by the scholar
during the evaluation of PST effect on the psychological skills of the gymnasts as the
385
attention scores have shown an improvement in the gymnasts over the period of
training.
The most commonly used cues or trigger points used by the gymnasts during training
and competition are presented in the table below.
Table 308: The most common cues used by the Gymnasts on various
apparatuses.
Number of gymnasts out of 30 used cue on various Apparatus

s.no Relevant Cues Floor Vault Uneven Balance High Parallel
Rings Pommel
Ex Table Bars Beam Bar Bars
1 Legs straight/tight 3 7 6 5 2 3 4 6
2 Arms straight 2 2 1
3 Body tight 2 5 1 1 2
4 Push/press 4 20 3 1 1
5 Late/delay 1
6 Gain height 24 1 2
7 Speed/fast 2 3
8 Twist 4
9 Rotation 3 7
10 Toe pointed 4 4 7 4 3 5
11 Landing 3 7 3
12 Snap/punch 3
13 Jump 3 3 2
14 Fast running 1
15 swing/kick 2 4 3 5 1 1
16 Pike 3
17 Tuck 1 1
18 Grip movement 2
19 Arch 1 3
20 Perfection 2
21 Long/body extend 2 1
22 Grace/execution 4
23 Balance/ hold 4 2
24 Legs together 1 1
25 Hook 1
26 Pull 1
27 Weight shift 2
386
The table highlights the frequency of the relevant cues practiced by the Gymnasts on
different apparatuses.
The table clearly shows that the most of the gymnasts at the majority of times try to
focus on the legs as the loose legs or bend legs may hinder the proper movement of
the body along with resulting a harm to the execution of the performance, while a
very less cues are used for the execution of arms. Another important trigger used by
the gymnasts on almost all the apparatuses is “toe” as clutching of the toes, makes the
whole body line stretched and adds the beauty to the elements. Along with this, it can
be noticed that on vault table “push” cue is dominating as it’s the contact and
repulsion of the hands with the vault table, which decides the future of the vault. It’s a
well known fact that in gymnastics “landing” plays an important role as if the landing
is misbalanced or missed it may result in a zero. On floor majority of the gymnasts
paid attention on gaining the height in the elements, as a good height provide enough
time in the air to execute the twist and rotations and land on the feet to get an
advantage of that element from the judges. On uneven bars, toe pointed, swing/kick,
grip movement, arch, perfection and body extension has been focused. The relevant
cues on balancing beam suits the requirement of performance on the beam as the cues
used are straight legs, body tight, gaining height, toe pointed, landing, jump,
grace/execution and balance/hold. On high bar boys used legs straight, body tight, toe
pointed, swing, arch and legs together. And on parallel bars along with legs, arms and
body straight, push, toe pointed and swing was focused. Gymnasts used legs straight,
body tight, push, swing, balance, hook and pull on roman rings. The most used cues
on the pommel horse were legs together as legs play an important role in the
movement of circles on pommel horse, straight arms, tight body for proper support
and flow of movement with press, and keeping toes pointed and long extended body
and shifting of the body, as it will allow legs to move swiftly and execution of the
movement will be improved
387
Section VII- Goal setting and Positive Self-talk
In the present study, Goal setting statements and the Positive Self-talk statements
were analyzed qualitatively as a subjective judgment was required based on non
quantifiable information given by the Gymnasts.
Goal-Setting Training Evaluation
The existence of mechanism of a positive relationship between goals and performance

had made the scholar to incorporate the goal setting training in the training program.
Each Gymnast involved in the training program was asked to set weekly goals on the
first day of every week and on the last day of each week were asked to evaluate
themselves in percentage, about how much they really feel could achieve their goal on
the particular apparatus or element. The analysis is presented in the table No. 309.
Table is self- explanatory and represents the percentage of goal each Gymnast has
achieved progressively after every week. As gymnast number one has progressed
from 60% in first week to 85% in sixth week. Table further shows few gymnasts had
changed their goal in the third week or fourth week probably they might have set easy
goal in first week and which they achieve by the end of third week itself.
388
Table 309: Representation of Goal setting of technical goal and its evaluation by
the Gymnasts themselves for Six Weeks
S.N
Technical Goals (Evaluation in percentage for six weeks)
o
%
Week 1 % Week 2 % Week 3 % Week 4 % Week 5 % Week 6
Handfront Handfront Handfront Handfront Handfront Handfront

60 70 70 85 85 85
On Vt On Vt On Vt On Vt On Vt On Vt
Backflip Backflip Backflip Backflip
Backflip
1 60 Salto On 80 Salto On 75 Salto On 80 Salto On 85
Salto On Bb
Bb Bb Bb Bb
Back 720 On Back 720 Back 720 Back 720 Back 720
60 70 70 98 95
Flx On Flx On Flx On Flx On Flx
Twist 900 Twist 900 Twist 900 Twist 900

2 80 Set On Hb 60 Set On Hb 70 90
On Flx On Flx On Flx On Flx
Tsukahara Tsukahara Tsukahara Tsukahara

60 70 80
Stretch Stretch Stretch Stretch
3
T Hold On T Hold On T Hold On T Hold On
30 40 40 40
RR RR RR RR
Jager Double
Yurchenko Back 540
From Swallow 360 Jager On
4 & Tsukahara 10 50 20 90 Rollout 60
Eagle Grip On Rr Dismount Hb
Stretch On Flx
On Hb On Hb
Double Double
Double On Double On Double Double
30 Back On 30 Back On 35 40 45 50
Flx Flx On Flx On Flx
Flx Flx
Aerial Aerial
Twist 720 Twist 720 Twist 720 Twist 720
5 30 Front On Front On 35 40 45 50
Bb Bb
Front Salto Front Front Aerial On
30 30 35 60
Bb Salto Bb Salto Bb Bb
Double Double Double
Pike
75 Back On 30 Back On 30 Back On 40
Tsukahara
Flx Flx Flx
6
Pike Gainer Twist 720 Twist 720 Twist 720
85 30 40 40
On Bb On Flx On Flx On Flx
7 Tkatchev 72 Tkatchev 75 Tkatchev 75 Tkatchev 80
BB - BB -
BB- Aerial BB- Aerial BB- Aerial
50 50 50 Aerial 65 Aerial 70
Walkover Walkover Walkover
Walkover Walkover
Forward Forward Forward Forward
Forward
8 10 Giant On 40 Giant On 45 Giant On 50 Giant On 50
giant On Ub
Ub Ub Ub Ub
Front 360 Front 360 Front 360 Front 360 Front 360
40 40 45 50 60
On Flx On Flx On Flx On Flx On Flx
Double Double Double Double
Back 540
Back On 20 Back On 40 Back On 45 50 Back On 50
On Flx
Flx Flx Flx Flx
Back
Back salto Handsprin
40 20 Salto St. 60
St. On Flx g On Bb
9 On Flx
Backfip On 8 Backflip Backflip Round
80 90 20
Flx 0 On Flx On Flx Off On Vt
389
Table 309 Continue: Representation of Goal setting of technical goal and its
evaluation by the Gymnasts themselves for Six Weeks
S.N Technical Goals (Evaluation in percentage for six weeks)

o
Week 1 % Week 2 % Week 3 % Week 4 % Week 5 % Week 6 %
F.Ex- 720 Vt-
60 F.Ex- 540 60 70 F.Ex- 540 95 Flx- 540 96 Flx- 540 85
Back Twist Tsukahara
10
HB- HB- HB- HB-
60 70 96 85
Tkatchev Tkatchev Tkatchev Tkatchev
Cut Cut Round Backup
Round Off
60 Upstart 60 Upstart 70 Off On 90 Rise On 80
On Vt
11 On Pb On Pb Vt Rr
Dismount Dismount
60 90
On Ph On Ph
Dismount
T On RR 40 T On RR 50 95
On RR
12
Hb- Hb-
20 30
Routine Routine
Back Back
360 On
540 On VT 50 Giant On 50 540 On VT 60 Giant On 80
Flx
PB PB
13
Back Back Back
Pike
Giant On 50 60 Giant On 70 Giant On 70
Tsukahara
RR RR RR
Front One Front One Front One Front One
10 20 20 30
Leg Leg Leg Leg
14
Backflip Backflip Giant On Giant On Giant On
20 30 10 50 90
Back Salto Back Salto Hb Hb Hb
Back Back Up Back Up Back Up Back Up
Back Salto
30 Scissor On 50 Rise On 60 Rise On 70 Rise On 70 Rise On 70
On Flx
Ph Rr Rr Rr Rr
Cast On Cast On Cast On Cast On Cast On
Cast On Pb 50 50 60 70 70 70
Pb Pb Pb Pb Pb
15
Circle On Circle On Circle Circle On
Back Scissor 30 60 70 70 60
Ph Ph On Ph Ph
Handspring Upstart Handsprin Upstart Upstart Upstart

30 50 60 70 70 60
Push On Vt On Hb g On Vt On Hb On Hb On Hb
Tsukahara Tsukahara Dismount Dismoun Back
Tsukahara
50 Tuck On 70 Tuck On 90 St. 360 On 53 t St. 360 Gaint On 40
Tuck On Vt
Vt Vt Pb On Pb Rr
16
Back
HB- HB- HB-
60 70 70 Gaint On 30
Tkatchev Tkatchev Tkatchev
Rr
Handspring
Handspring Roundoff On Roundoff Roundoff Roundoff
17 40 Front On 50 70 70 70 70
On VT Vt On Vt On Vt On Vt
Flx
Back
Back Straight Handfront Handfront Handfront
Straight 20 40 60 60 60
On Flx
Handspring Handspring Handspring
80 80 90
Pike On Vt Pike On Vt Pike On Vt
Tsukahara Tsukahara
Tsukahara
Tuck On 50 Tuck On 60 60
Tuck On Vt
Vt Vt
18
Forward Forward
Forward
Giant On 10 Giant On 10 25
Giant On Rr
Rr Rr
390
Technical Goals (Evaluation in percentage for six weeks)

S.No.
540 On
540 On Flr 30 30 540 On Flr 25
Flr
Back
Back Salto On
Salto On 30 60
Bb
Bb
Pike On Pike On
Pike On Vt 50 50 Pike On Vt 50 Pike On Vt 50 60
Vt Vt
Backflip Backflip On Backflip Backflip

19 50 50 50 60
On Bb Bb On Bb On Bb
Front Front Front Front
Front Stretch
Stretch On 50 50 Stretch On 60 Stretch On 50 Stretch 60
On Flx
Flx Flx Flx On Flx
Pike On
Pike On Vt 20 Pike On Vt 30 Pike On Vt 50 50
Vt
20 Backflip Backflip Backflip Backflip
Backflip
10 Salto On Salto On Salto On Salto On 20
On Flx
Flx Flx Flx Flx
Backflip Backflip Backflip On Handspring Handspring
20 40 80 20 40
On Flx On Flx Flx On Vt On Vt
21 Front
Front Salto Front Salto
20 Salto On 60 100
On Tramp On Tramp
Tramp
Front Up Front Up
Handspring Cast On
90 Cast On PB 80 70 Rise On 30 Rise On 60
On VT PB
22 RR RR
Backup
40
Rise On Hb
Backflip Scale On
Frontwalkover
Back on Toe On 70 60
On BB
Flx Bb
23
Leap To
Handspring Backwalkover
80 Stag on 50 50
On VT On BB
Flx
391
S.N Technical Goals (Evaluation in percentage for six weeks)

o
24 Forward
Tkatchev Back 360
540 On 80 30 70
On Hb On Flx
Flx
Back
Back Giant Back Giant
Giant On 40 30 90
On Rr On Rr
Rr
Forward Forward
40 30
Stretch Stretch
Tsukahara 20 Tsukahara 30
25
Handsprin Front Salto Backflip Back Flip Back Flip Back Flip
70 80 70 80 80 80
g On VT On Flr On Flr On Flr On Flr On Flr
26
Front On Front On Circle On Circle On Circle On
80 90 60 60 60
Flx Flx Ph Ph Ph
Inlocation Inlocation Inlocation

Back Up
Scissor On to Back Scissor To To
Rise On 70 60 30 50 30 40
PH Uprise On On Ph Backuprise Backuprise
PB
RR Ob Rr Ob Rr
Handspring
On VT 50
27 Turn Turn
Turn Front Turn Front Turn Front Turn Front
Front On 30 40 60 Front On 60 60 70
Flx Flx
Front One
90
Leg
28
Turn 10
Turn Front 11 Turn Front 30 Turn Front 70 Turn Front
Front 0
Front One Front One

Leg To 70 Leg To 90
Backflip Backflip
29
Handsprin Roundoff Roundoff Roundoff Roundoff
40 50 50 60 65
g On VT On Vt On Vt On Vt On Vt
Backflip Handspring Handspri Handspring Handspring

Straight 50 Front On 40 ng Front 50 Front On 60 Front On 70
On Flx Flx On Flx Flx Flx
Handspri
Handspring Handspring
ng Pike 50 60 70
Pike On Vt Pike On Vt
On Vt
392
Section VII
Positive Self-talk training analysis
Positive self-talk affirms that one possess the skills, abilities, positive attitudes and
beliefs that are the building blocks of success, keeping this fact, the positive self-talk
training was set in the training program and the Gymnasts were provided with the
training by the research scholar in a systematic manner. The process of first
identifying the negative thoughts and then changing them into positive thoughts was
the part of training.
in the present section, Gymnast’s Negative thoughts were changed to the positive self-
talk. The results are presented in the tables below.
393
Table 310: The most common negative self-talk used by the Gymnasts.
Number of Gymnasts repeated the negative thought

s.no Negative thoughts
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
1 Fear of injury 22 17 17 11
2 Injured (pain) 7 6 6 2
3 Fear of fall 12 19 13 6
4 Doubtful attempts 11 12 6 7
5 Disturbance by friend 6 4 1
6 Low energy 19 8 4 3
Changing
7 Others doing better 10 3 1 1
8 Study pressure 5 1
negative self
9 Audience fear 1 3
10 Scolded by/fear coach 9 22 2 2
talk to positive
11 Scolded by parents 1
12 Lack of confidence 2 4 self talk 1 1
13 Junior /friend teaches 1
14 Poor quality Apparatus 1 1 1
15 Fear of competition 1 2 5
16 Heavy/food makes heavy 2 1
17 Poor feedback 1
18 Poor execution/technique 2 2
From the table it can, easily be understood that because of the higher difficulty of
movements in gymnastics and requirement of performing elements with execution
makes gymnasts work harder and harder towards learning but along with that hard
work the thoughts that dominates a gymnasts mind are presented in the table above.
The Fear of injury and fear of fall are dominating along with the doubt in attempting
the elements. The learning process some time gets difficult and coach may get violent
while teaching, The fear of coach is also negative as that hinder the learning and
training and here we can see the big number of thoughts are occupied with the fear of
394
coach. Lack of confidence or inability to perform confidently on the poor quality

apparatuses was also a matter of concern. Self doubt and feeling low, that might be
because of lack of interest and or confidence, has been repeated by the majority of the
gymnasts. There are number of other negative thoughts in the table which were
noticed by the gymnasts and written down in the logbook during the training.
When after the first two weeks of negative thoughts identification, Gymnasts were
taught to stop the negative thoughts and replace them into the positive ones, the
Gymnasts could improve their positive self talk after the efforts were made.
By looking at the table, it is observed that a reduction in the number of negative

thoughts had started by the end of the training. Through this it can be concluded that
the training of self talk had a positive effect on the gymnasts thoughts process.
After the training was administered negative thoughts were changed to positive
thoughts. The results are presented in the tables below.
395
Table 311: Representation of six weeks Self-talk Training (Process of changing

Negative self talk to Positive Self-talk)
Negative Self-Talk Change To Positive Self-Talk

Notice
Notice Negative Self-talk after Self-talk after
Negative Thoughts training training
Subjects Thinking &
S.No. stopping
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
& Week 5 Week 6
Number of Number of
Number of Thoughts Number of Thoughts
Thoughts Thoughts Week 4
Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Positive
1 9 6 1 5 4 5
2 5 3 3 6 3 5
3 6 4 5 5
4 4 4 2 2
5 4 3 5 7 5 5
6 6 2 2 3 3 3
7 3 5 10 8
8 Changing
5 3 3 5 3 5
9 negative
5 5 3 5 2 4
10 5 4 self talk to 1 5 3 3
11 5 5 positive 2 5 4 5
12 5 1 self talk 5 1 5
13 5 4 4 5 4 5
14 4 4 5 5 4 4
15 5 5 5 5 4 4
16 5 4 4 5 3 5
17 4 3 1 5 1 4
18 5 4 5 5
19 4 5 5 5 5 5
20 5 5 5 5 4 5
396
Table 311 continue: Representation of six weeks Self-talk Training (Process of

changing Negative self talk to Positive Self-talk)
Negative Self-Talk Change To Positive Self-Talk

Notice
Notice Negative
Self-talk after Self-talk after
Negative Thoughts training training
Subjects Thinking &
S.No. stopping
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
& Week 5 Week 6
Number of Number of
Number of Thoughts Number of Thoughts
Thoughts Thoughts Week 4
Negative Negative
Negative Positive Negative Positive
21 3 2 3 2 1 1
22 4 5 Changing 4 4 2 2
23 4 5 negative self 1 1 1
24 5 5 talk to 1 1 1
25 4 4 5 5 1 6
positive self
26 5 4 5 5 5 5
talk
27 5 5 5 5 5 5
28 5 5 4 5 5 5
29 4 3 1 5 2 4
In the above table each gymnast’s individual negative and positive thoughts were
studied. It is observed that majority of the Gymnasts could reduce the number of
negative thoughts. However, subject No. 14, 15, 25 and 26 Gymnasts had equal
number of negative and positive thoughts in fifth week and sixth week. This indicates
that training should be designed in a manner that each individual’s requirement could
be taken care. Table has further shown that for majority of the gymnasts, this
technique is useful and can be incorporated in their training program.
397
Discussion of Findings
Section I - Effect of PST on Psychological skills, Section II - Effect of PST

program on the Performance of various Gymnastics apparatuses & Section III -
Correlation Between Gymnast’s Performance and their Psychological Skills.
In the present study, PST was employed to test its effects on Psychological skills of
the gymnasts, based on the discussion in chapter 1, that “Skill” refers to learnable and
trainable abilities used by different individuals, (Weinberg and Gould, 2007). The
results of the present study reveals that the PST Program composite of Goal-setting,
Relaxation, Imagery, Attention, Self-talk and Self-confidence has been most useful in
enhancing the Psychological Skills of the Artistic Gymnasts. All the data collected
offered to understand the scenario in the quantity and created an overall picture of
PST influence on psychological skills with the help of the tools, researcher
investigated the effectiveness of intervention program, to train the psychological skills
of the gymnasts having different level of performance. CSAI-2 by Martin and PSAS-
G, validated tool constructed by the researcher were administered as criterion
measures.
The current study suggests that Gymnasts who engaged in PST program designed for
performance enhancement when compared to participants in a controlled condition
where, the gymnasts did not participate in a PST program exhibited enhanced over all
psychological skills, skills of Goal-setting, Self-confidence, Attention, Arousal
Regulation, Imagery, Self-awareness. Whereas a statistical insignificant effect has
been noticed in the motivation with a very less improvement in the post mean as their
pre mean of motivation was already high, this could be attributed to the fact that
Gymnasts those who acted as subjects participated at national or international level
and already have high level of motivation. Moreover, all the Gymnasts were
undergoing rigorous training for many years. Continuing the training for a long period
itself indicate that the subjects are motivated a lot. Cognitive and Somatic anxiety two
way ANOVA calculation reveals an insignificant change but by employing the effect
size statistics to check the change in means, it can be analyzed that there is a reduction
in somatic and cognitive anxiety but with small effect size. Improvement in
398
psychological skills is supported by the findings given by George

Mamassis & George Doganis, (2004). A number of studies show that athletes who are
strongly confident in sport, concentrate better, have healthier emotions, and
demonstrate better game strategies, control of tempos, and performance than
less confident athletes (Chi, 1996; Gould, 1981; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkin, 1987).
Much of the early research prescribed PST programs and tested their effect on
performance (Martin, Moritz & Hall, 1999; Garza & Feltz, 1998). In consideration to
a great emphasis has been place on identification of numerous psychological skills
and on instruction of athletes in how to learn and apply them (Orlick, 1990, Nideffer,
1992, Williams, 1993) psychological skills are related to a number of desired qualities
such as commitment to training, confidence and decreased pre competition anxiety
(Williams and Krane, 1992; White, 1993). Zeng et al. (2008); Bull (1991) and
Mamassis and Doganis (2004) have the similar outcomes.
With an anticipation of enhancement in sports performance and psychological skills a

combination of several psychological skills were developed for the Artistic Gymnasts
and the results of the present study, also supports the assumptions of the researcher,
with the reference to the findings of (Calmels etal. 2003), Fournier, J., Calmels, C.,
Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. (2005).
The result of the current study suggest that Gymnasts who engaged in PST program
(performance enhancement Techniques) when compared to participants in a
controlled condition, depicts an improvement in their performance.
The effectiveness of the program can be revealed by observing that statistical analysis
has also proved that all around performance of Girls with 6.6% and on three apparatus
out of four (Vault Table, floor and beam) with approx 4-8%. Whereas, performance
on uneven bars shows insignificant improvement (p= 0.06) might be because of the
biomechanics of the elements on the bars as it requires the most of strength as
compared to other three apparatuses, but however there has been a raise of 8% in the
performance of the experimental group than the controlled group, (Durand-Bush,
1995) and the effect size is 2.29 which is a high difference. In flow of the Girls
results, the boy’s performance has also improved as compare to improvement in the
399
performance of controlled group with approx 0.50 to 5% on various apparatuses. The

two way anova calculation results represents statistically insignificant improvement
but this might be because of the peculiar evaluation system in gymnastics, in which
the scores of performance has the tendency of improvement with 0.10, 0.20 etc, by
improving the difficulty and or the execution of the elements which most of the times
takes months to develop. For example a child performing flic-flac on floor and other
performing Back salto on floor will get the same score as both the elements carries A
value i.e 0.10 but to learn the back salto it takes time as it’s an air born movement.
Another example for a better understanding, may be to raise the difficulty of the
exercises for example a gymnasts performing back salto will at least take 6-7 months
to learn back 360 a B value element (0.20) and another 6-7 or more months to learn
back 540 a C value (0.30), we can see the scenario of 0.10 salto to 0.30, takes approx
2 years of learning if learned technically and aesthetically, based on the fact, GFI has
planned their compulsory exercises for sub-juniors and juniors. The various countries
have their levels for the gymnasts (elements according to the training age of the
gymnasts) and levels of Australia, which is one of the best performer country at the
international gymnastics were reviewed (Levels of Sydney Gymnastics Centre,
Australia).
In the present study all the gymnasts, belonged to Sub-Junior and Junior age category
except a few gymnasts who were suppose to participate at the senior level for the first
time in the upcoming competitions. Keeping in mind the above fact and
understanding that even a little improvement in the scores of the gymnasts which
might not be considered statistically significant, can be of great importance for the
gymnasts and their coaches. To know the exact level of improvement in the
performance of the gymnasts those who attended the PST intervention as compare to
the gymnasts in the control group, the effect size of the change in the mean of pre and
post performances of both the groups was calculated. The results revealed that the
performance of the Gymnasts in PST program had a greater performance after the
intervention i.e effect size of all around performance of boys is 0.75, which falls in the
category of high difference, on floor exercise the performance is greater with the less
difference, whereas on high bar it’s a moderate difference with 0.63 effect size,
Parallel bars, pommel horse, roman rings and vault table has a high difference with
400
0.77, .84, 1.19 and 1.28 effect size respectively. The gymnasts and their coaches had
also expressed that their performance has begin to improve with PST imparted by the
scholar.
Improvement in performance is supported by the findings given by Calmels, C., &

Fournier, J. (1999). A number of studies and as above discussed PST effect on
psychological skills show that athletes who are strongly confident in sport,
concentrate better, have healthier emotions, and demonstrate better game strategies,
control over temperaments, have better performance than less confident athletes (Chi,
1996; Gould, 1981; Mahoney, Gabriel, & Perkin, 1987). With the related approach of
psychological skills and performance, study reviews of 20 published studies till 1989,
(Loehr, 1994; Weinberg, 1988) are in positively support of influence on performance.
Vealey (1994), Weinberg & Comar (1994), (Cox, 2007).
Further to test the relation between the psychological skills and gymnast’s
performance correlation was tested and findings revealed a significant relationship
between total psychological skills and performance of male and females. Because six
mental skills training was given together in a form of PST program, through this it
became easy to understand the most effective and least effective skills on the
performance. The findings of this study are consistent to the several studies, Cainey,
(2009), Drista (2009), Thorsen (2005), Sui et al. (2008), Uemura (2005), Salmon
(2001), Kenneth and Matthew (2009), Durand-Bush et al. (2001), Fletcher and
Hanton, (2001). As present study show that out of six psychological skills only
arousal regulation, Imagery and self-confidence have a statistical significant relation
with all the apparatuses of the boys except floor exercise, as movements are a series
of air born elements, which might take more time to show the significant affect, with
attention, motivation and self awareness have no significant relation with none of the
apparatuses. But total psychological package has a significant relation with overall
performance and all the apparatuses except floor and vault table. In case of girls
performance all the psychological skills except goal-setting and motivation have a
significant relation with the performance of the girls on several apparatuses. Most
importantly the total PST program has a significant relation with the overall
performance of the female gymnasts. It can be supported, with the fact that the elite
401
and non elite athletes can be differentiated on the basis of their mental skills, better
psychological skills are related to the better performance and a positive relationship
exists between the both, (Williams & Krane, 2001, Michael Sheard & Jim Golby
(2006), Bhambri, P.K. Dhillon and S.P Sahni, (2005). So it is evident from the results
that the improvement in Psychological skills of the athletes, initiates the improvement
in their performance, (Williams & Krane, 2001), Sheard & Golby (2006). Which was
the main objective of the present study, the improvement in performance of the
gymnasts might be the initiation of the improvement of their performances.
Section IV - Effect of Relaxation Training
In the present study, the gymnasts were introduced to Breathing easy exercises,
Breathe Regulation Techniques, Mantra meditation, progressive muscle relaxation,
and autogenic training. Their relaxation state was measured by monitoring Pulse rate,
Respiration Rate and through a scale where gymnasts used to mark themselves
according to their present state of calmness to tension on a scale of 1 to 8 to check if
there is any effect of each session of relaxation training on the gymnasts. The
descriptive analysis and the graphical representations reveals that there is a reduction
in pulse, respiration and tense rate, after completing every days relaxation sessions,
with a statistically insignificant change in the pulse, respiration except week 2, and
the tension rate in except week 3 & 4, out of six weeks training, probably because of
the shorter period of various techniques interventions.
Significant changes have been observed by calculating the Effect sizes for the
different treatments (e.g., Breathing easy exercises, Breathe Regulation Techniques,
Mantra meditation, progressive muscle relaxation, and autogenic training) were
calculated. Most of the treatments produced significantly larger effect size in the
reduction of pulse rate, respiratory rate and tension level, which with support of the
results of effect of PST on psychological skills, measured by PSAS, Arousal level has
significant higher effect size along with the results of CSAI-2 in support by revealing,
that cognitive and somatic anxiety has been reduced with small mean effect size.
There are several studies in support, Eppley KR, Abrams AI, Shear J. (1989), Jorge
402
Cottyn, Dirk De Clercq, (2006), Tim Woodman & Lew Hardy, (2011), Athan, A. N.
& Sampson, U. I. (2013).
It has been discussed thoroughly in chapter one, that how difficult the movement are
in gymnastics and what makes the gymnasts so anxious, “When anxious, nervous or
worried, an increase in the rate and depth of breathing often occurs. That is, we
‘overbreathe’, and take in more oxygen than the body needs. This upsets the balance
between oxygen and CO2. When our breathing rate increases, a number of other
physical changes occur in the body to make up for the imbalance. These changes
cause the unpleasant physical sensations we experience when anxious”, Barlow, D.H.,
Raffa, S.D., Cohen, E.M. (2002). Keeping in view the same, it was a great matter of
concern to introduce the gymnasts with several relaxation exercises, which, indeed
can be used by them before and during training/competition by themselves to relax
themselves and calm down to perform in an optimum state for better results as they
have proved to be effective in reducing the tension and controlling the breathe. Gould
D, Udry E. (1994), Athan, A. N. & Sampson, U. I. (2013), Daniel Gould , Robert C.
Eklund & Susan A. Jackson (2013).
The training of relaxation techniques can be considered as effective and useful. The
human normal respiration rate is 16 to 20 breaths per minute and pulse rate is
anywhere between 70 and 80 beats per minute, through regular training, we may have
a reduced normal heart rates near 50-65 beats per minute and reduced respiratory rate
by 4-7 breaths per minutes through chronic effects, (Green, 2003), (http://www.stress-
management-for-peak-performance.com/breathing-exercises.html). Time to adapt the
physiological changes in the body through relaxation training depends upon the
amount of time spent in training, (Sara W. Lazar et al. 2005). That is the reason many
of the studies of relaxation therapy have followed for weeks or months longer studies.
Lahmann C, Henningsen P, Schulz C, et al., 2010. The present study also suggest the
same, the resting respiratory rate recorded on day 1 was 20.37 which was reduced by
1.81 breath on an average, tension reduced by 5.5% after the completion of six weeks
relaxation training. A regular acute reduction in the pulse was noticed after each
relaxation session but no chronic effect has been noticed as for a chronic effects a
403
long term cardiovascular training must be administered on regular basis, Zondi,

(2013).
Section V- Effect of Imagery Training
Mental imagery as an integral part of PST was incorporated in the program, to assess
the imagery training learning with vividness, auditory, kinesthetic and mood sense.
The positively significant results have been noticed in all the four cases when
compared the first day training scores with the last week training scores. An
improvement in the vividness, Calmels, C., Holmes, P., Berthoumieux, C., & Singer,
R.S (2004), auditory, kinesthetic sense (most important in gymnastics) and mood
senses have been presented. In the present study, imagery has a positive relation with
performance of boys and girls in almost all the apparatuses except floor and girl’s
floor and vault, in support of studies by (Hall & Erffemeyer, 1983; Onestak, 1997),
karate (Weinberg, Seabourne, & Jackson, 1981), serving in tennis (Noel, 1980),
racquetball (Gray, 1990), and golf, track and field, gymnastics, and diving (Lohr &
Scogin, 1998). This could be the cause of the fact that imagery occurs when the
relevant object, event, or scene is not actually present to the senses i.e “seeing in the
mind's eye,” “hearing in the head,” “imagining the feel of,” etc. Imagery is an
experience similar to a sensory experience (visual, kinesthetic, auditory, tactile and
olfactory). It involves moods and emotions, but arising in the absence of the usual
external stimuli as sensing the movement of your body, apparatus etc., Plessinger.A,
(2007), as we “in turn physiologically creating neural patterns in your brain, just as if
had physically performed the action. These patterns are similar to small tracks
engraved in the brain cells which can ultimately enable an athlete to perform physical
feats by simply mentally practicing the move and enhancement in the senses for
practicing imagery in the brain directly leads to improvement in the sports
performance”, Eccles (1958).
The above results of the present study gets more reliable with the support of the
findings PSAS, in which it is evident from the results that a significant difference was
found in the Imagery with in pre and post trails i.e before and after training between
experimental and control group’s imagery differ significantly. On the basis of the
404
above, it can be concluded that there is positive effect of imagery training on the
performance of the gymnasts (PST intervention and physical training) on all the
apparatuses with small to higher mean effect size as compare to the gymnasts in
controlled group. Calmels, C., & Fournier, J. (1999) study is in support, Moritz, Hall,
Martin and Vadocz (cited in Hale et al., 2005), Jackson and Csikszentmihalyi (1999),
Hale et al., (2005); Kremer & Moran, (2008); Vealey & Greenleaf, (2006). “In
addition to physical practice, mental practice is effective on participants in
development of skill acquisition component. Several studies Leonardo (1995),
Yaguez et al. (1998), Cumming and Hall (2002), Hall (2002), Hill et al. (2003),
Dijkerman et al. (2004) and Sanders et al. (2004) have confirmed these findings. They
have shown in separate studies that mental practice can improve motor learning.
However, there are other studies in mental practice learning and acquisition of motor
skills that are viewed as ineffective. Ryan and Simon (1982) showed that mental
practice has no effect on motor skill learning. Mulder at al. (2004) showed mental
exercise has no effect on learning of a new motor task. Although Nowicki (1995)
believes that the ineffectual of mental practice in learning motor skills resulting from
the wrong implementation. In other words, he and other researchers (Hall, 2002)
contribute this matter to person's disability to imagery properly. Unlike the results of
Rawlings at al. (1972), Gabriel at al. (1989) show that mental practice affects learning
of motor skills as much as physical practice. Thus, Grouise (1992) found physical
practice improves the performance of diving skill better than mental practice. Also
Kohl at al. (1992) reported that real exercise leads to better acquisition of motor skills
than mental practice. Moreover, Jackson (2004) found mental practice has less impact
than physical one in learning of a sequence task. Mulder at al. (2004) found that
mental practice has no effect on learning of a new motor task. On the contrary of
Rawlings finding, Wendell (1989) examined impact of mental practice in enhancing
spear throwing skill, and concluded that mental practice has the same effect of
physical practice. Yaguez at al. (1998) reported that mental and physical practice both
improve motor learning as the same rate.”
405
Section VI – Effect of Attention Training
Literature exhibits that, attention aids for better performance level, Wilson, V.E.,
Peper, E. & Schmid, A. (2006). Keeping in view the same, attention training was also
integrated in the PST program and a systematic training of attention was imparted, for
initial two weeks Attention Grid training was used to improve the ability to focus and
concentrate on the task in hand. Followed by shifting attention training (using
concentration on what you hear, body, mind and zooming exercise) for another two
weeks to enhance the ability to shift attention by altering both attention width and
direction over time. And finally, relevant cues training was used to teach them to
focus on a particular aspect while executing the elements to improve the performance.
The attention grid training shows the positive results by improving the attention level
in two weeks, evaluated by calculating the repeated measure ANOVA, it has been
revealed that there is significant improvement in the scores of Attention grid during
the two weeks training as obtained F = 14.65 at p < 0.01. It means that ability of
attention using attention grid in players has developed significantly in a linear way.
So, there is influence of attention Training, several studies support the same results,
Harris, D.V., & Harris, B. L.(1984). With an aim of enhancing, gymnast’s ability to
shift attention easily, four important aspects were trained i.e body awareness,
concentrate on mind, auditory awareness and narrowing attention, to generate the full
awareness of senses to focus fully at the point of demand. Taylor J, (2010)
(http://www.usta.com/Improve-Your-Game/Sport-Science). The assessment of the
results reveals that there is significant linear effect of training (p< 0.01), the number
of sessions in two weeks could improve the ability of body awareness, concentrate on
mind, auditory awareness and narrowing attention significantly. The same result has
been supported by Fournier, J., Calmels, C., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. (2005)
stating that PST program appeared to be most effective on focusing, and refocusing.
On three events out of four (bars, beam, floor), the 10 gymnasts progressed 5% more
than 11 other gymnasts who did not follow this PST program. The results of the
present study also reveals that a statistical significant relationship exist between the
female Gymnast’s performance on bar, beam, floor and overall performance and
406
attention skills, whereas no statistical significant relation has been noticed in the male
performance and their attention skills.
Results of the current study suggest that attention training has a significant
improvement in the attention ability of the gymnasts. Evaluation of the PSAS scores,
analyzing attention results, reveals that a significant difference could be noticed in the
pre and post performance of attention within the experiment group as p< 0.01, with no
significant difference in the attention pre and post trials of the control group with p as
0.91. Fournier, J., Calmels, C., Durand-Bush, N., & Salmela, J. (2005), in several
studies Gould, Weiss, and Weinberg (1981) displayed significantly higher levels of
attentional focus (p = .003) than less successful athletes, (Golby & Sheard, 2004).
This may support the fact that attention training enhanced the attention skills of the
gymnasts, in current study has a positive relation with their sports performance, which
is arithmetically insignificant but has enhanced performance of the subjects. Orlick
and Partington (1988) also suggests the same.
407

12 - Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

12 - Chapter 5

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

12 - Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5- Data Analysis

Section I - Effect of PST on Psychological skills

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics of Total Psychological Skills Scores

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

psychological skills as 104.00, SD 13.03 and post psychological skills 103.50, SD

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS, was further

95% Confidence Interval

MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

Figure 6: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre and

Table 31: Descriptive Statistics of Arousal Regulation

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Thus, the null hypothesis that there is insignificant influence of interaction on

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS was further

95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval

Figure 7: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre and

Table 35: Descriptive Statistics of Attention

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F P

42.27 1 42.27 7.37 .01*

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS was further

95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence Interval

Figure 8: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre and

Table 39: Descriptive Statistics of Self-Awareness

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Self-Awareness * groups 38.94 1 38.94 6.08 .01*

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS was further

95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval

An insignificant difference is noticed between pre and post performance of Self-

Figure 9: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre and

Table 43: Descriptive Statistics of Self Confidence

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS, was further

(I) (J) MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

(I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval

Figure 10: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre

Table 47: Descriptive Statistics of Imagery

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Imagery * groups 34.83 1 34.83 10.78 .00*

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS was further

95% Confidence Interval

MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

Figure 11: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre

Table 51: Descriptive Statistics of Motivation

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F P

Motivation * groups 9.52 1 9.52 4.40 .04*

As f value is significant, test of simple effects in syntax of SPSS, was further

(I) (J) MD Std. 95% Confidence Interval

95% Confidence Interval

Figure 12: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre

Table 55: Descriptive Statistics of Goal-setting

Groups Performance Mean Std. Deviation N

Source Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F P

Goal-setting * groups 2.74 1 2.74 .99 .32*

Figure 13: Graphical representation of Experiment and Control Group’s Pre