sp3022 dissertation complete

1

BRUNEL UNIVERSITY LONDON

DIVISION OF SPORT, HEALTH AND EXERCISE SCIENCES

VERBAL PROTOCOL ANALYSIS IN GOLF: AN ILLUSTRATION OF THOUGHT

PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS

Running head: THOUGHT PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS

BY

GREGORY J PALIN

Supervised by:

DR ROBIN JACKSON

A Dissertation submitted in partial

fulfilment of a BSc (Hons) Degree:

Sport Sciences Component

2015

THOUGHT PROCESSES WHILST READING LONG-RANGE PUTTS 2

Acknowledgements

Without the guidance and support of many people, this dissertation project would not have

been possible. Firstly, I would like to express my thanks to my supervisor, Dr Robin Jackson,

whose expertise, guidance and feedback have been extremely beneficial towards the

completion of this dissertation. In addition, I want to sincerely thank the participants who

voluntarily took part in this study and to Trefloyne Manor for use of their fantastic facilities.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my close family and girlfriend for their

constant support throughout university.


Table of Contents

Page

List of tables and figures…………………………………………………………………. 5

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. 6

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 7

Chapter 2: Review of Literature………………………………………………………….10

2.1 Verbal Data Collection Outside of Sport………………………………………..11

2.2 Verbal Data Collection in Tennis……………………………………………….12

2.3 Levels of Verbalisations………………………………………………………...14

2.4 Retrospective and Concurrent Reports………………………………………….15

2.5 An Application of Verbal Protocol Analysis in a Similar Golf Putting Task….. 16

2.6 Gaze Behaviour in Aiming Tasks……………………………………………… 18

2.7 Rationale……………………………………………………………………….. 19

2.8 Aims and Hypothesis…………………………………………………………... 19

Chapter 3: Methods………………………………………………………………………. 21

3.1 Participants……………………………………………………………………...21

3.2 Apparatus………………………………………………………………………. 21

3.3 Task……………………………………………………………………………..22

3.4 Procedure………………………………………………………………………..22

3.5 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………... 25

Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………………27

4.1 Putt Duration, Putt Score, Glance Frequency and Mean Duration…………….. 27

4.2 Concurrent Verbal Report Results……………………………………………... 29

Chapter 5: Discussion…………………………………………………………………….. 35


5.1 Total Putt Assessment Duration……………………………………………………….. 35

5.2 Pre-Putt and Putt Phase Assessment Duration………………………………….36

5.3 Putt Score……………………………………………………………………….36

5.4 Glances during the Putt Phase of Preparation………………………………….. 37

5.5 Pre-Putt Phase Verbalisations…………………………………………………..38

5.6 Putt Phase Verbalisations………………………………………………………. 40

5.7 Limitations and Future Directions……………………………………………... 42

5.8 Practical Implications…………………………………………………………...44

Chapter 6: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….46

References………………………………………………………………………………….47

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………… 53

A. Research Participation Information Sheet………………………………………53

B. Informed Consent Sheet………………………………………………………... 54

C. Data Collection Sheet………………………………………………………….. 55


List of Tables and Figures

Page

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA Analysis for Putting Variables…………... 28

Table 2: Difference in Total Putt Assessment Duration for Good Putts and Poor Putts….. 28

Figure 1: Mean Glance Frequency and Duration across Higher and Lower-Skilled

Golfers………………………………………………………………………………29

Figure 2: Inductive Content Analysis of Higher-Skilled Golfers during Pre-Putt Phase…. 30

Figure 3: Inductive Content Analysis of Lower-Skilled Golfers during Pre -Putt

Phase……………………………………………………………………………….. 31

Figure 4: Inductive Content Analysis of Higher-Skilled Golfers during Putt

Phase……………………………………………………………………………….. 33

Figure 5: Inductive Content Analysis of Lower-Skilled Golfers during Putt Phase……….33


Abstract

Previous research within sport has investigated the cognitive processes that occur during

problem solving tasks. However, little research has focused upon these processes during golf

putting. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to examine the cognitive strategies employed

by higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Identifying

differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt scores,

glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance were additional aims. Consequently,

a mixed methods design was incorporated. Higher (n = 10) and lower (n = 10) skilled golfers

performed 12 twenty-five foot putts from four different locations on a putting green whilst

thinking aloud. Cognitive processes were examined through protocol analysis. Verbal data

were collected through voice recordings, transcribed, coded and analysed. Long-range putting

performances were assessed by a scoring system. A video camera was implemented to gauge

putt assessment durations and to record the frequency and duration of glances towards the

target, following address. Quantitative putt variables were statistically analysed. Results

indicated that higher-skilled golfers expressed fewer mechanical thoughts and employed

additional cognitive and physical planning strategies. Furthermore, higher-skilled golfers

recorded significantly higher putt scores and shorter glances to target. No significant

differences across skill levels were found for putt assessment duration and glance frequency.

The prospective implications for lower-skilled golfers, coaches, applied sport psychologists

and golf academies are discussed.

Keywords: golf, putting, cognitive processes, skill levels.


Chapter 1: Introduction

There are many important elements within golf that must be effectively executed in

order to achieve high performances. Driving, iron play, pitching, chipping and putting are just

some of these fundamentals. Whilst experience, instruction and mastery of kinematics are

important in order to become an ‘expert’, the cognitive strategies employed in golf,

particularly during putting (Beilock, Wierenga, & Carr, 2002; Calmeiro & Tenenbaum,

2011), have attracted the attention of researchers.

To maintain high levels of sporting performance, one could incorporate a preparation

phase or pre-performance routine (PPR) (Boutcher, 1990). A PPR is a “sequence of task-

relevant thoughts and actions which an athlete engages in systematically prior to his or her

performance of a specific sports skill” (Moran, 1996, p. 177). Within golf, PPRs enable

performers to concentrate effectively (Boutcher, 1992; Cotterill, Sanders & Collins, 2010;

Shaw, 2002), overcome negatives, select appropriate motor schema and avoid excessive

attention to putt mechanics (Boutcher, 1992). The majority of psychological research has

suggested that better golfers display more consistent routine times (Crews & Boutcher, 1986;

Thomas & Over, 1994). Nevertheless, it has also been suggested that professional golfers’

routine times are sporadic, so PPRs tailored to an individual’s characteristics and

requirements could have greatest performance effects (Cotterill et al., 2010).

A golf putt involves striking the ball along the ground from a resting position into the

hole (Campbell & Moran, 2014). Putting is arguably the most crucial aspect within golf, as

between 41% (PGA Tour, 2011) and 43% (Pelz, 2000) of strokes are struck by the putter at

the professional level. Moreover, Alexander and Kern (2005) found that putting performance

was the biggest determinant of earnings on the PGA Tour. As putting is a self-paced skill,

execution is exclusively controlled by the golfer (Singer, 1988). Although putt kinematics

appears to be understood, there has been little attention within psychological literature to the


cognitive processes that occur during pre-putt preparation. A further understanding of these

processes could have benefits for both athletes and coaches. To analyse cognitive processes

during putting, verbal protocol analysis, identified by Ericsson and Simon (1984), is a proven

ecological method. This method involves recording verbalisations relating to cognitive

strategies in problem solving tasks (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). In the present study,

protocol analysis will be used to identify cognitive processes during long-range putting.

Although putt kinematics is an important facet of putting performance, performance is

dependent upon possession of accurate, perceptual judgement of the proposed path of the putt

(MacKenzie & Sprigings, 2005). This process of gathering environmental information and

preparation prior to skill execution varies considerably across golfers; between 30 and 120

seconds (Campbell, 2006). Despite the apparent importance for reading the green, putt

preparation has received little scientific attention.

Another aspect of putt preparation to be examined in this study is gaze behaviour, or

Quiet Eye (QE; Vickers, 1996). QE is defined as the “final fixation or tracking gaze located

on a specific location or object in the visuomotor workspace for a minimum of 100 ms”

(Vickers, 2007, p. 11). QE has been shown to underpin skilled sports performances (Causer,

Janelle, Vickers, & Williams, 2012), with longer durations characterising greater expertise

and accuracy (Vickers, 2007). This is thought to be because QE allows performers an

extended duration of planning, whilst also helping to minimise distractions (Moore, Vine,

Cooke, Ring & Wilson, 2012). Research on golf putting has found that fewer fixations

(Vickers, 1992; 2007) of longer durations (Wilson & Pearcy, 2009) were associated with

successful performances.

Previous research has investigated the cognitive processes that occur during problem

solving tasks, particularly within sport. However, little research has focused upon these

processes during golf putting. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to examine cognitive


strategies employed by higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation.

Identifying differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt

scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance were additional aims.

Findings from this study could identify ways to improve lower-skilled golfers’ long- range

putting and contribute towards improved policy within golf academies.


Chapter 2: Review of Literature

It is apparent that verbal data are sought after amongst psychologists and other

scientific education researchers. In this instance, verbal data will be used to assess cognitive

processes during long-range golf putting. Ericsson and Simon (1984) stated that verbal

responses provide useful data across various paradigms. These talk-aloud protocols are being

increasingly implemented for reasoning and problem-solving tasks within science education

research (Lemke, 2012). One reason for collecting verbal data is an increasing trend towards

studying complex cognitive activities in practice or competition (Chi, 1997). Calmeiro and

Tenenbaum (2011) suggested that during performance-related tasks, cognitive processes can

be detected and elicited through verbal protocols. Following this, it is possible to identify

discrete types of cognitive, situational information (Ward, Suss, Eccles, Williams & Harris,

2011). Verbal protocol analysis can effectively identify how this complex information is

processed.

In this chapter I will initially summarise the use of verbal data collection across an

array of relevant contexts, including cognitive processes in law enforcement officers (Ward et

al., 2011) and chess players (Charness, 1981) during simulated tasks. Moreover, I shall

review a number of key papers that adopt verbal reports when assessing decision making

performance in tennis (McPherson & Thomas, 1989; McPherson 1999a, 1999b) and

volleyball (McPherson & Vickers, 2004). Following this, the three levels of verbalisations

identified by Ericsson and Simon (1984) shall be reviewed. In the next sub-section of this

chapter I will critically interpret concurrent and retrospective reports, with an aim to establish

the most appropriate type for this study. I shall then evaluate a similar study conducted by

Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) which focused on cognitive processes during golf putting. It

is important to learn from limitations of other studies in order to design a study that is as

rigorous and error free as possible with the available resources. Following this, I will


summarise QE research within sport, particularly focusing on studies concerning golf putting.

In the final sub-section, current research purposes shall be explained and hypotheses outlined.

2.1 Verbal Data Collection Outside of Sport

Verbal data has been successfully collected through reports and interviews in order to

assess cognitive processes across a variety of pressurised, decision-making situations.

Outside of sport, Ward et al. (2011) investigated cognitive performances of law

enforcement officers during a simulated decision making task. In the study, 14 skilled and 14

less-skilled officers undertook a variety of video scenarios to assess decision making abilities.

Unsurprisingly, skilled participants outperformed less-skilled participants across all 11 tasks,

displaying greater monitoring and prediction scores. Ward et al.’s (2011) study provided an

example of how verbal protocol analysis can be implemented; nevertheless, it may be

irrelevant to associate such conclusions to the current study. Firstly, it is clearly difficult to

link findings of a study concerning law enforcement officers to a study focusing on golf.

Secondly, the use of retrospective verbal reports may not provide sufficient data in the

present study. A detailed analysis of retrospective and concurrent reports will be valuable in

order to distinguish which report is most appropriate to this investigation.

Another study by Charness (1981) displayed the application of concurrent verbal

protocol analysis in chess. The investigation comprised of 34 individuals; split into skilled

and less-skilled groups. Participants were given four scenarios and were instructed to

verbalise their thoughts when calculating the next move. Conclusions from this study

indicated that skilled, and younger players searched more extensively for a solution to the

problem. Ultimately, quality of the selected move was exclusively affected by skill. The

implementation of concurrent, as opposed to retrospective reports makes this study more

relatable to the present. A more recent investigation conducted by Charness, Reingold,

Pomplun and Stampe (2001) has improved upon Charness’ (1981) study by implementing


eye-tracking software. This development allowed the researchers to track and analyse

detailed eye movements and in doing so, superseded the requirement for verbal reports.

Despite this methodological improvement, Charness et al.’s (2001) results also found that the

quality of the selected move was exclusively affected by skill. It may be difficult to associate

findings from an activity outside of sport, such as chess, to the present study. This could be

because chess players are heavily dependent upon excellent cognitive strategies, whereas

putting is also influenced by stroke kinematics and putting green conditions, etc.

2.2 Verbal Data Collection within Sport

McPherson and Thomas have conducted many studies within tennis that analyse

verbal data. One study involved assessing decision making performance between expert and

novice tennis players. In this study, four groups comprised of 10 individuals. Groups

contained experts who possessed tournament experience and high skill levels and also lower-

skilled ‘novice’ participants, who were without tournament experience (McPherson &

Thomas, 1989). In this study, verbal reports were collected through interviews, during and

after the task, rather than verbal protocols. One example of a question given by McPherson

and Thomas (1989) was “what were you thinking about when you were playing that point?”

(p.200). Subsequently, McPherson and Thomas (1989) found that experts had greater

decision-making abilities due to a more diverse knowledge structure. It may be difficult to

compare findings of McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) study to the present, due to the

implementation of interviews. Verbal data shall be collected through protocol analysis in the

current study. McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) findings shed light on the cognitive processes

that are present during a complex problem solving situation in sport. Nevertheless, as

McPherson and Thomas’ (1989) study focused specifically on youth tennis players and with

the current focus being on adult golfers, conclusions may be incomparable.


Another similar project by McPherson (1999b) investigated tactical differences to

problem representation and solution tasks between novice and expert female tennis players,

aged 18 to 22. The six experts were first team members of a National Collegiate Athletic

Association division 1A university tennis club, two of whom were College All Americans.

The six novices were undertaking a beginner course at the same university. All participants

were exposed to a situational interview following the task, answering questions like “what are

some of the things you think about before your serve?” (McPherson, 1999b, p.372). Findings

highlighted that expert tennis players displayed greater levels of tactical awareness and

demonstrated more comprehensive solutions to response execution. McPherson (1999b) also

found that experts possessed a greater ability to generate more specialised cognitive action

plans during competition. However, it may be unsuitable to generalise results from a study

focused on tennis to the present. As golf putting is a self-paced activity, results may be

incomparable to a sport like tennis, where pace is often determined by the opponent. It is also

difficult to associate results containing gender differences; McPherson’s (1999b) study

concerned female tennis players, whereas the present shall focus on male golfers.

Finally, it may be interesting to review a study conducted by McPherson and Vickers

(2004) which focused on cognitive processes in expert junior volleyball players. Of the five

male participants, two were members of the Canadian junior team, whilst the other three were

training with the team on a summer camp. Similar to the present study, McPherson and

Vickers’ (2004) investigation attempted to identify how problems are addressed through

verbal and gaze behaviours during a performance task. Verbal reports were gathered through

pre-task and concurrent interviews. McPherson and Vickers (2004) found that elite

performers possessed action plans that regulated the response; other studies have similar

results (French & McPherson, 1999, 2004). Furthermore, McPherson and Vickers (2004)

found that elite athletes were able to actively modify action plans throughout the task. Gaze


behaviours were collected through a combination of eye tracking software and verbal reports.

McPherson and Vicker’s (2004) results were inconclusive due to an insufficient number of

trials. It is also questionable whether a sample of only five participants can yield reliable

results. Moreover, McPherson and Vickers (2004) focused solely upon elite performers,

reducing the likelihood that results from the current study, involving club-level golfers, can

be linked.

All of the studies above produced purposeful results in their chosen domain.

However, some clear discrepancies make their respective findings inappropriate for direct

comparison with the present study.

2.3 Levels of Verbalisations

Before visiting the types of reports that are used to collect verbal data, it is important

to examine how information is processed and subsequently transferred by the brain into

measurable verbal responses.

The identification of different verbalisation levels was derived by Ericsson and Simon

(1984). The most basic verbalisation, or level one, occurs when “information is reproduced in

the form in which it was heeded” (Ericsson & Simon, 1984, p.16). So the information

collected by the individual is not transformed by the brain before being outspoken, it may be

an instinctive response. Beilock et al. (2002) disputed that verbalisations of highly automatic

tasks are plausible. For example, it may be irrelevant to verbalise putts of fewer than three

feet as individuals performing these semi-automatic tasks may have stored the required

information in the long-term memory.

Level two verbalisations involve reconstructing information from one form to

another; images to words for example. If information is not originally in verbal form, it needs

to be translated into it (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). In the present study, participants will be

required to perform level two verbalisations. This is often the case when analysing long-range


putts, as many experts appear to use visualisation techniques such as envisaging a line from

the ball into the hole.

Level three verbalisations are distinctive from level one and level two, as the

necessary information is present in the first two levels. Whereas at level three, further

information is required (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Ericsson and Simon (1984) illustrate that

level three verbalisations often require participants to focus on a specific aspect of a situation

or skill that they would not usually attend to, such as motor schemas. In regards to a putting

task, a researcher may ask participants to focus on keeping the putter face square to target

throughout the stroke, whereas golfers may usually avoid such mechanical thoughts. In the

present study, participants will not be tasked with level three verbalisations as they may be

too complex, consequently impeding performance (Ericsson & Simon, 1984).

2.4 Retrospective and Concurrent Reports

Two distinct types of reports within verbal protocol analysis must be reviewed in

order to conclude which type will provide most accurate results in this study.

A retrospective report is obtained by the researcher following the task, whereby,

participants are instructed to recall thoughts and experiences (Ericsson, 2002). Ericsson and

Simon (1984) suggested that these reports are ideally recorded immediately following the

task, as it is crucial that information is present in the short-term memory. Furthermore,

Ericsson (2002) highlights the importance of restricting information to memories that an

individual can certainly recall. Initially, Nisbett and Wilson (1977) suggested that a break

between the task and verbal collection made it unlikely that relevant information remained in

the short-term memory. However, Ericsson and Simon (1984) argued that these retrospective

verbal reports often yield the most accurate representations of memory organisations.

Moreover, the process of recalling one’s thoughts may strengthen the overall memory of an

activity (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Nevertheless, it is important to consider that memory


retrieval can generate errors, often occurring when similar memory structures in the long-

term memory are accessed instead of the short-term memories generated through the task.

Concurrent reports are verbalisations of cognitive processes generated by the

participant during a task (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). These concurrent protocols require

participants to think aloud whilst performing a task (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). While it

is plausible to suggest that thinking aloud could affect cognitive processes and performance

during tasks, Ericsson and Simon (1984) found no evidence to suggest that thinking aloud

produces different results. Furthermore, concurrent reports reveal unchanged cognitive

processes when problem solving, whereas other report types may cause a change (Ericsson &

Simon, 1984). A notable limitation however, is that participants take a significantly longer

period of time to complete tasks (Ericsson, 2002). Therefore, it may be valuable to include a

warm-up period in the present study, in line with Calmeiro and Tenenbaum’s (2011) study,

whereby, participants are educated with effective ways of verbalising thoughts.

It is clear that both concurrent and retrospective reports provide effective ways of

extracting verbal data during problem solving tasks. Nonetheless, in this study, it seems more

appropriate to implement concurrent verbal reports, as they appear to provide a more realistic

representation of the cognitive processes that are present during golf putting. Moreover, as

this study is likely to be affected by time constraints, verbalisations shall be generated

throughout the task, rather than upon completion. The implementation of concurrent reports

will enable data collection to be more time effective.

2.5 An Application of Verbal Protocol Analysis in a Similar Golf Putting Task

Verbal protocol analysis has been applied successfully in order to assess cognitions

when problem solving across many domains, yet surprisingly less so in golf.

In a recent investigation, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) assessed the cognitive

processes between novice and experienced golfers through a putting task. As the study is


relatively current and concerns some related variables it may be a valuable, relevant resource

through which to compare findings.

In the study, one sample comprised of three male, experienced golfers who possessed

11 to 15 years of competitive experience and held handicaps of scratch, 13 and 15. The

second sample comprised of three female, novice golfers that had between one and two

years’ experience, yet were without handicaps. During the task, participants performed

twenty 12’ putts from four different locations on a practice putting green. Participants were

asked to ‘think aloud’ from the green examination until the outcome of the putt;

verbalisations were recorded by a microphone situated on the participants. Verbal data were

quantitatively analysed by a coding scheme consisting of gathering information, planning,

technical instruction, description of outcome, diagnosis, mental readiness and reactive and

other comments (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). Categories like gathering information,

planning, technical instruction and mental readiness are applicable to the present study.

However, categories concerning putt outcome are irrelevant as the present study will focus

specifically on putt preparation. Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) found that experienced

golfers were more effective at assessing the green and diagnosing faults, whereas novice

participants produced greater amounts of technical instruction and mental preparation

(Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). These findings are similar to those identified by McCaffrey

and Orlick (1989) and Beilock, et al. (2002) when assessing expert and novice golfers.

The project conducted by Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) had some significant

methodological limitations that can be considered and subsequently improved in the present

study. Firstly, the small sample size may have contributed to some non-significant findings.

Secondly, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) stated that the inclusion of opposing gender

groups may have caused a confounding issue; hence the sole focus on male golfers in the

present study. Furthermore, Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011) classified some participants as


‘novices’ despite participation in golf for over a year. As a result, a more specific focus on

participant classification is required. For example, it would have been beneficial for Calmeiro

and Tenenbaum (2011) to define a ‘novice’ golfer.

The present study shall adopt a similar methodological approach to that of Calmeiro

and Tenenbaum’s (2011) study, whereby the implementation of concurrent verbal protocol

analysis is used to assess cognitive processes during golf putting. Therefore, it may be

appropriate to compare present findings to those of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011).

2.6 Gaze Behaviour in Aiming Tasks

In the present study, I shall be investigating the frequency and duration of glances

away from the golf ball, towards the target, that higher and lower-skilled golfers demonstrate.

These glances will be examined during the putt-phase of preparation, after golfers have

addressed the ball and are ready to execute the putt.

To focus and perform optimally, one must attempt to control visual gaze. This is

particularly true in sports skills requiring optimal timing, precise cue selection and focus for

long durations (Vickers, 2011). Moreover, to hit a target accurately, one should control their

gaze so that final fixations are on the target for a sufficient duration (Vickers & Williams,

2007).

Alongside basketball free-throw shooting, golf putting is an extensively used task in

QE investigations (Panchuk & Vickers, 2013). Research by Vickers (2007) suggested that

golfers can fixate on the top or back of the golf ball in order to implement QE effectively.

Alternatively, golfers can fixate on a specific area, behind or directly at the hole in order to

enhance putting performance (Binsch, Oudejans, Bakker & Savelsbergh, 2009). Whilst Binsh

et al.’s (2009) study produced interesting results; findings are only applicable to novice

golfers. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to relate findings to the current study, where

glances are examined across skill levels. Eye movements have also been observed in


university golfers during putt preparation (Wilson & Pearcy, 2009) and in expert and novice

golfers as they stood over the ball, preparing to strike putts (Vickers 1992, 2007). Wilson and

Pearcy (2009) found that longer periods of fixations were associated with successful putting;

however, such findings should be carefully accepted as results were based on just six

participants. Conversely, Vickers (1992, 2007) found that expert golfers displayed fewer

fixations per putt, on both occasions. Nevertheless, Vickers’ (1992, 2007) studies have two

key limitations (Campbell & Moran, 2014). Firstly, analysis was based on a small sample

comprising of 12 participants. Furthermore, participants were defined as experts, however,

their mean handicap was 6.2. A handicap of four is required before a golfer is deemed

sufficiently expert to turn professional. In addition, Vickers’ (1992, 2007) studies concerned

fixations on the ball, whereas the present study is examining glances towards the hole.

2.7 Rationale

Having addressed key themes associated with verbal data collection, it is clearly

important to understand how verbalisations contribute to this study. It was also beneficial to

review retrospective and concurrent reports in order to gain an understanding of when each

report is most effective. Following this, it was concluded that concurrent reports are to be

implemented in the current study. Having also reviewed the literature, many studies within

different parameters have effectively incorporated verbal protocol techniques to identify

cognitive processes when problem solving. However, there has been a limited scientific

exploration of these processes through verbal protocol analysis in golf. Moreover, research

has yet to assess cognitive processes in higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range

putting and so it is a viable avenue in which to undertake research.

2.8 Aims and Hypothesis

It is hoped that by identifying where cognitive differences lie between higher and

lower-skilled golfers when reading long-range putts, that more effective PPRs for amateur


golfers can be developed and applied accordingly. Findings could also result in a greater

focus on reading long-range putts, whereby golfers are psychologically educated throughout

academy programmes. The research hypothesis for this study is that higher-skilled

participants will verbalise more thoughts related to both gathering information and planning,

will record greater putt assessment durations, will demonstrate less frequent, longer glances

to target and will record greater putt scores.


Chapter 3: Method

3.1 Participants

20 male white-British golfers, with ages of 18 to 61 (M = 39.85, SD = 13.88)

participated in a golf putting task. Participants had diverse levels of competitive golf

experience ranging from a year to 37 years (M = 13.15, SD = 11.00). After entering expected

means and standard deviations for key processes and outcome dependent variables (i.e., putt

assessment duration), a sample size of 10 participants per group was found to yield power

>.80. Accordingly, 10 participants were recruited for each of the two groups. The first

comprised of 10 higher-skilled golfers with active Council of National Golf Unions

(CONGU) handicaps of 5.4 or below (M = 3.5, SD = 1.8), which had competed at senior

county level (n = 2) and national level (n = 1). The other sample contained 10 lower-skilled

golfers with handicaps of 19.5 or above (M = 23.1, SD = 2.5).

3.2 Apparatus

Subjects were requested to use their personal putters (M length = 35 inches), with an

aim to create conditions that were comfortable to them. The use of white Titleist Pro V1 golf

balls was a standard control measure. A practice putting green at a local golf course compiled

of Native Annual Meadow, Native Fescue and straight bent grasses and portrayed an accurate

representation of on-course conditions. A plastic disk with a diameter of four and a quarter

inches (standard measurement of a golf hole) remained in a solitary position throughout the

task. An Olympus voice recorder, positioned in the trouser pocket of each participant,

connected to Apple iPod in-ear headphones, through which the integrated microphone

accurately recorded participant verbalisations throughout the task. A Panasonic Lumix video

camera analysed the frequency and duration of glances towards the target. The camera was

positioned on a tripod in two standardised locations: behind the hole as they read the putt, and

face on to the golfer at address. Additionally, ball markers were placed at diameters of one,


two and three foot circling the disk. Golf tees were placed into the ground to mark the four

different putting locations on the green.

3.3 Task

Participants performed a total of twelve 25’ putts on a putting green while thinking

aloud. Participants were asked to verbalise all thoughts from placing the ball marker behind

the golf ball to putt strike. Three putts were taken from four different marked locations; each

location was marked at a distance of 25’ from the edge of the disk. Two of the four were

straight putts, where position A was straight uphill and position C straight downhill. The

other two were sloping putts; position B incorporated a right-to-left break and position D

incorporated a left-to-right break. 12 putts were separated into three sets of four putts. The

first and third sets consisted of participants moving from positions A to D accordingly.

During the second set, participants were asked to progress through positions A, D, C and B.

During this task, participants were prompted to keep talking if they remained quiet for over

10 seconds (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011; Nicholls & Poleman, 2008).

In the present study, five dependent variables were measured: participant

verbalisations, putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean

duration per glance. Dependent variables were collected for two independent groups,

comprising of higher and lower-skilled golfers.

3.4 Procedure

The field-based investigation took place at a golf course; a facility that the researcher

was able to obtain straightforward access to. To proceed, the researcher required written

permission from the club. This was subsequently gained through a letter of approval from a

senior member of the management team. As the task required a large area of the putting

green, it was mutually agreed between the researcher and the club that any data collection

would take place at quiet periods, hence minimising any inconveniences to other golfers. The


recruitment process itself incorporated purposive and convenience sampling, and as the study

required golfers with specific handicap criteria, these individuals were firstly identified and

purposely selected from the golf club. Due to time constraints, other individuals that

demonstrated an interest to participate and possessed handicaps that met the criteria were

subsequently included. Once contact details were acquired, date and time slots were

organised with each participant. Prior to the task, a pilot study was implemented to test and

adjust the proposed methods (Gratton & Jones, 2010). This enabled the researcher to practice

recording and analysing data of a Professional Golfers Association (PGA) professional. In

addition, the pilot study provided an insight into the time taken to complete the putting task,

allowing the researcher to plan sessions and inform participants accurately. It also certified

two appropriate camera positions on the putting green and the voice recorder location.

Prior to the task, a research participation information sheet (see Appendix A) was

provided to each participant via email. This outlined research purposes, identified why

participants were selected and highlighted researcher and participant roles in the study.

Additionally, potential risks were presented along with associated safety guidelines.

Participants were reinforced of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without

reason and consequence. Following this, contact details of the researcher were stated.

On arrival, the researcher provided an informed consent sheet (see Appendix B) to

each participant, where they were required to complete research specific information

including handicap and competitive golf experience. The participant’s signature of agreement

to take part under their own consent was also compulsory. The researcher then explained the

task in detail for five minutes, whilst answering questions. Each participant was reminded

that they should verbalise all thoughts during the preparation and execution of 12 long-range

putts. At this point, participants were asked to place the voice recorder in their trouser pocket,

ensuring that the microphone was in a position to obtain verbal data. It was emphasised,


based on level two verbalisations (Ericsson & Simon, 1984) that participants must simply say

what they were thinking throughout the trial. The following instructions were given to

participants prior to the task:

Please verbally state everything that you are thinking, from the start of the putt

assessment until the strike. You do not need to explain these thoughts. Please

envisage yourself as being alone and so conduct the putt assessment as you usually

would. There is no correct way of doing this. Please ignore that fact that I will be

moving to various positions with the video camera and instead focus upon these

thoughts.

Participants were then asked to undertake a short warm-up period of approximately 10

minutes. Based on the study of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), the warm-up was split in to

two periods. The first required participants to solely practice their putting from a variety of

locations and distances. The second period involved the rehearsal of verbalising thoughts

whilst putting. During this period, it was essential to offer constructive feedback to

participants in order to enhance verbalisation quality (Ward et al., 2011).

During the task, participant verbalisations were recorded by a voice recorder. This

presented an insight into the processes that are present in the cognitive processor. A video

camera was implemented to examine the frequency and duration of glances away from the

ball and towards the disk. The video camera was also used to identify the time taken from the

start of putt preparation until the putting action was initiated. This was a fundamental

variable, as the time taken to read a putt may be associated with the putt outcome. For each

putt, the resultant distance from the ball to the edge of the disk was assessed by a scoring

system: 4 points were awarded for holing the putt, 3 points for within a foot, 2 points for

within two feet and 1 point for within three feet. This assessed long-range putting

performance across skill levels; current scientific literature has not investigated this variable.


3.5 Data Analysis

Five dependent variables were appropriately grouped into verbal statements, putt

scores, putt assessment durations, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance.

Verbal data was subjected to verbal protocol analysis (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). To

best analyse verbal data, participant’s verbal reports were firstly transcribed verbatim.

Following this, an external judge also transcribed 12 putts from two participants in order to

test reliability. Reliability of transcripts was estimated by the equation: na / (na+nb) × 100,

where na is the number of agreements and nb is the number of disagreements (Calmeiro &

Tenenbaum, 2011). Inter rater reliability was resultantly greater than accepted reliability

coefficients of 70% (Frey, Botan & Kreps, 2000) and 80% (Neuendorf, 2002). The meaning

unit was defined as any relevant quote pertaining to different aspects of putt preparation;

irrelevant verbalisations were removed from the data set (in line with Nicholls & Poleman,

2008). Following this, an inductive content analysis was taken to discover and subsequently

organise reoccurring themes into meaningful categories across skill levels (Patton, 2002).

Total putt assessment duration was measured from the instant at which participants

placed a ball marker behind the ball until the start of the putting action. Total putt assessment

duration was further separated into pre-putt and putt-phases. The pre-putt phase was

measured between the instant of marking the golf ball, until the putter head was grounded

behind the ball. Whereas the putt-phase was measured from the moment the putter head was

grounded, until the putting action was initiated. Windows Movie Maker, a programme

operating at a frequency of 30 frames per second, was used to calculate assessment durations.

Total putt assessment durations were calculated for both ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts. A ‘good’

putt was defined as one that finished within 2’ of the disk, whereas a ‘poor’ putt finished

outside of 2’. Therefore, total putt assessment durations associated with putt scores of 4, 3

and 2 were compared to durations with putt scores of 1 and 0. The frequency of glances and


mean duration per glance when addressing the ball were also identified through Windows

Movie Maker. To calculate glance durations, start (first frame where focus deviated from the

ball towards the target) and finish points (first frame where focus returned to the ball) were

identified. Microsoft Excel was used to determine glance frequency and duration prior to

statistical analysis.

Putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration

per glance variables were statistically analysed by IBM SPSS 20 for windows statistical

package. A MANOVA analysis of these dependent variables identified differences between

higher and lower-skilled groups. In addition, an independent samples t-test was conducted to

identify a difference in total putt assessment duration between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts.


Chapter 4: Results

4.1 Putt Duration, Putt Score, Glance Frequency and Mean Duration

Initial statistical data screening indicated that there were no univariate or multivariate

outliers. To determine whether there were any significant differences in putt assessment

durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance between

higher and lower-skilled golfers, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) test was

conducted. An independent samples t-test was also used to identify a difference in total putt

assessment duration between ‘good’ and ‘poor’ putts.

Hotelling’s T statistic was used to compare two levels of an independent variable (i.e.

skill level). There was a significant difference between higher and lower-skilled golfers

across putting variables, T = 2.38, F (4, 15) = 8.34, p <.01. The univariate output revealed

that higher-skilled golfers had significantly greater putt scores (M = 20.90, SD = 2.85) than

lower-skilled golfers (M = 13.10, SD = 2.73), F (1, 18) = 39.17, p <.001. The eta squared

value of .69 indicated a large effect size. Furthermore, Figure 1 displays a significant

difference in mean glance duration, F (1, 18) = 10.30, p < 0.01, with higher-skilled golfers

having on average, a shorter mean glance duration (M = 1.00, SD = 0.37) than less-skilled

golfers (M = 1.87, SD = 0.77). An eta squared value of .37 suggested a moderate effect size.

There were no significant differences across skill levels for glance frequency per putt, total

putt assessment duration and pre-putt and putt phase assessment durations, p >.05. In

addition, there was no significant difference in total putt assessment duration between ‘good’

and ‘poor’ putts (see Table 2).


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and MANOVA Analysis for Putting Variables of Higher-Skilled (A) (n

= 10) and Lower-Skilled (B) (n = 10) Golfers

Putting Variable M SD F (1,18) Partial 2

Total Putt Assessment Duration (s) A 33.63 5.55 1.21

2.69

2.13

.06

.12

.16

Pre-Putt Phase Assessment Duration

(s)

Putt Phase Assessment Duration (s)

B

A

B

A

B

28.41

27.31

20.22

6.41

8.21

13.94

4.74

12.82

2.71

2.82

Putt Score A 20.90 2.85 39.17*** .69

B 13.10 2.73

Hotelling’s T = 2.38, F (4, 15) = 8.34, p <.01

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 2

Difference in Total Putt Assessment Duration for Good Putts (n = 98) and Poor Putts (n =

99)

Putt Outcome M SD t

Good Putt 23.09 7.66 0.58

Poor Putt 22.40 8.74

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.


Figure 1. Mean glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance between higher and

lower-skilled golfers. (n = 10) in both conditions.

4.2 Concurrent Verbal Report Results

128 raw quotes were identified and following inductive content analysis, recurring

themes were separated according to pre-putt and putt phases of preparation. Themes

associated with pre-putt and putt phases for both groups will be addressed individually in the

following paragraphs. Initial 1st order themes and further categorised 2nd order themes are

displayed alongside raw data examples.

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

Higher-Skilled Lower-Skilled

Mea

n D

ura

tio

n p

er G

lan

ce (

s)

Mea

n G

lance

Fre

quen

cy p

er P

utt

Skill Level of Golfer

Glance Frequency per Putt Mean Duration per Glance (s)


Raw Data

”Read the line”

“Have a little look at the line”

“Get a feel for the level of the

land”

“Gauge the distance first”

“This one definitely breaks a little

bit at the start and then flattens

out nearer the hole”

“Just looks a right hand break, a

tiny bit”

“Little bit icy on top”

“The greens are a little bit frosted,

so they’re running a bit slower”

“I can see the line”

“Then I see the line”

“Going to pick a little spot”

“I always pick a spot about a foot

in front of the ball”

“Just concentrate on the pace”

“Hit this one a bit harder”

“Fancy this one”

“Feeling good on this putt”

“Align the logo up with the line I

want the putt to start on”

“Line the maker’s name up with

the line I want it to go on”

“Couple of practice swings”

“Take my three practice strokes”

1st Order Theme

Reading the Line

(n = 6)

Initial Putt Evaluation

(n = 5)

Gathering

Environmental

Information (n = 10)

Identification of

Environmental

Conditions (n = 6)

Identifying a Visual

Line (n = 7)


Spot (n = 6)

Use of Planning

Instruction (n = 9)

Mental Readiness

(n = 3)

Aligning Ball Logo to

Target (n = 4)

Use of Practice Strokes

(n = 7)

2nd Order Theme

Reading the

Green

Mental

Preparation

Physical

Preparation

Figure 2. The inductive content analysis of higher-skilled golfers during the pre-putt phase of

preparation, showing recurring themes that resulted from raw data. (n =) represents the

number of participants that made comments associated with 1st order themes.


Raw Data

“Just work out the level of the

land”

“Go behind the ball, look at the

hole and see which way the green

is lying”

“It looks like there is a right to left

slope”

“I’d say this is straighter. Light

break to the left”

“With the condition of the green

and the temperatures”

“A bit wet down here”

“I’m picking a spot”

“I’ve got a little marker”

“So I need to be aiming to the right

of the target”

“So, again I’m going to give this

one a little bit more”

“So take a straight line as if it is

coming out of the hole”

“Imagine the shot”

“Lined up lovely”

“Right this is going in”

1st Order Theme

Initial Putt

Evaluation (n = 5)

Gathering

Environmental

Information (n = 9)

Identification of

Environmental

Conditions (n = 3)


Spot (n = 3)

Use of Planning

Instruction (n = 7)

Visualisation (n = 3)

Mental Readiness

(n = 4)

2nd Order Theme

Reading the

Green

Mental

Preparation

Figure 3. The inductive content analysis of lower-skilled golfers during the pre-putt phase of



Both groups implemented a number of similar strategies during the pre-putt

phase of preparation, including three themes related to reading the green (see Figures 2 & 3).

More specifically, a similar proportion of both samples reported thoughts relating to initial

putt evaluation and a large proportion expressed verbalisations relating to identifying


environmental conditions. A greater proportion of higher-skilled golfers reported

verbalisations regarding gathering environmental information (n = 6). Additionally, a further

three themes were identified in association with mental preparation. Within this, more higher-

skilled participants (n = 6) reported thoughts regarding the identification of a visual spot, for

example “I always pick a spot about a foot in front of the ball” (see Figure 2), and “I’m

picking a spot” (see Figure 3). Moreover, similar proportions of both groups demonstrated

thoughts about planning instruction and mental readiness prior to address.

Higher and lower-skilled golfers also applied some dissimilar strategies during the

pre-putt stage of preparation (see Figures 2 & 3). Whilst reading the green, six higher-skilled

golfers reported verbalisations relating to reading the line, for example “have a little look at

the line” (see Figure 2); there was less evidence of such implementation by lower-skilled

golfers. Secondly, during mental preparation, most higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) verbalised

comments with respect to identifying a visual line towards the target, for example one

participant stated “I can see the line” (see Figure 2). Lower-skilled golfers did not tend to

demonstrate these thoughts. Nevertheless, within mental preparation, lower-skilled

participants expressed thoughts relating to implementing visualisation strategies, such as “so

take a straight line as if it is coming out of the hole” (see Figure 3). Moreover, Figure 2

demonstrates that higher-skilled golfers verbalised thoughts associated with physical

preparation. Within this 2nd order theme, higher-skilled participants incorporated two physical

strategies. Most higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) talked about the application of practice strokes.

Verbalisations relating to aligning the ball logo to target were less well represented (n = 4).

Unlike the higher-skilled, lower-skilled participants did not frequently demonstrate

cognitions concerning these physical strategies prior to address.


Raw Data

“I take one look, two looks down

the line. The third look down the

line to the finish point”

“Look at the hole once”

“Then, putt”

“Fire!”

1st Order Theme

Visualisation of

Line/Target (n = 7)

Use of Cues (n = 6)

2nd Order Theme

Mental

Preparation

Figure 4. The inductive content analysis of higher-skilled golfers during the putt phase of


number of participants that made comments associated with 1st order themes

Raw Data

“Got the ball offset towards the

front of my stance”

“Nice straight arms, swing like a

pendulum”

“Visualising the putt, thinking it’s

going in the hole”

“Look at the hole, look at my

target”

“Feed it down to the hole”

“Here we go”

“Try and line the back of my putter

to where I’m going”

“Place the putter behind, straight

line”

1st Order Theme

Use of Technical

Instruction (n = 5)

Visualisation of

Line/Target

(n = 4)

Use of Cues

(n = 5)

Aligning Putter to

Target (n = 4)

2nd Order Theme

Mental

Preparation

Physical

Preparation

Figure 5. The inductive content analysis of lower-skilled golfers during the putt phase of




As can be seen in Figures 4 and 5, both groups implemented a number of similar

strategies during the putt phase of preparation, including two themes relating to mental

preparation. More specifically, both groups reported thoughts relating to visualisation of line

or target, although more higher-skilled golfers (n = 7) expressed such thoughts. Additionally,

both higher-skilled (n = 6) and lower-skilled (n = 5) participants used cue words, such as

“fire!” (see Figure 4) and “feed it down to the hole” (see Figure 5).

There is also indication that higher and lower-skilled participants implement a number

of different strategies during the putt-phase of preparation. Within mental preparation, lower-

skilled golfers (n = 5) verbalised thoughts involving technical instruction, for example “nice

straight arms, swing like a pendulum” (see Figure 5); higher-skilled golfers reported fewer

verbalisations. Unlike the higher-skilled, lower-skilled participants recurrently verbalised

cognitions associated with physical preparation and in particular, aligning putter to target. For

example, one participant stated “try and line the back of my putter to where I’m going” (see

Figure 5).


Chapter 5: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine cognitive strategies employed by higher and

lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Identifying differences between skill

levels according to their putt assessment durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and

mean duration per glance were additional aims. To accurately analyse data, results were

organised into pre-putt and putt phases of preparation. In line with limited research focused

on golf putting (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011), it was firstly hypothesised that higher-skilled

golfers would express more thoughts relating to both gathering environmental information

and planning. It was secondly hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would spend longer

assessing each putt, would record greater putt scores and would implement less frequent,

longer glances. Following analysis and comparison of findings between skill levels, some

significant results were highlighted. From these findings, one can suggest ways of improving

putt preparation and long-range putting performance.

5.1 Total Putt Assessment Duration

Following statistical analysis, a non-significant difference was identified for total putt

assessment duration. Therefore, the hypothesis, advocating that higher-skilled golfers would

spend longer assessing putts, was rejected. This result showed that the time spent assessing

the putt (from marking the ball, to the moment the putting action was initiated) was not

influenced by skill. Putt assessment duration within golf has received little attention within

literature. An explanation for this could be that researchers have been more concerned with

putt kinematics and the effect of pressure on putting performance. Nonetheless, this result

questions the findings of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), who found that experienced

players spent longer assessing environmental conditions and planning the putt than beginners.


5.2 Pre-Putt and Putt Phase Assessment Duration

Total putt assessment duration was further separated into pre-putt and putt-phases for

statistical analysis. The pre-putt phase measured the duration between the instant of marking

the ball until the putter head was grounded behind the ball, with the putt-phase measuring the

duration from the moment the putter head was grounded, until the putting action was

initiated. Following analysis, no significant differences were observed between skill groups

for both phases. Results suggest that both higher and lower-skilled golfers spend a similar

amount of time assessing the green prior to address, as well as when they are in position to

strike the putt.

As no differences between skill levels were identified for total, pre-putt and putt phase

assessment durations, it also appeared that putt assessment duration had no impact upon

putting performance. More specifically, no significant difference in total putt assessment

duration between ‘good’ putts and ‘poor’ putts was found. Although researchers have yet to

investigate this aspect of preparation, the present finding suggests no prescriptive

recommendation for how long golfers should assess putts in order to improve performance. It

may be personal preference, whereby, golfers putt best following a preferred duration of

assessment.

5.3 Putt Score

In this study, participants performed a putting task which objectively assessed long-

range putting performance. Following statistical analysis, higher-skilled golfers reported

significantly greater putt scores and ultimately displayed greater long-range putting

performances. This could be due to a superior ability to read the green, more detailed

planning or simply, more efficient stroke kinematics as a result of practice and professional

supervision. Future research could therefore attempt to identify the greatest predictor of

skilled long-range putting performance.


This result may come as no great surprise due to the composition of two different skill

groups. In golf, superior putting is regarded as a fundamental aspect of skilled performances.

For example, some of the world’s best golfers are also great putters, such as Graeme

McDowell, who is currently 28th in the Official World Golf Ranking (OWGR, 2015), was

ranked as the best putter over the 2014 PGA Tour season based on the ‘Total Putting’ statistic

(PGA Tour, 2015). This statistic incorporates all facets of putting and is therefore able to

identify the most efficient putters. Nevertheless, great putting does not solely guarantee a low

stroke average. Greg Chalmers for example was ranked second based on the same statistic,

yet is presently ranked 179th on the OWGR. Whilst many elite golfers compensate with other

superior statistics such as driving distance or accuracy, putting performance may be a sound

predictor of skilled golf. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would record

greater putt scores, the research hypothesis was subsequently accepted.

5.4 Glances during the Putt Phase of Preparation

The analysis of glances during address revealed a non-significant difference between

skill levels for glance frequency. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would

conduct fewer glances to target, the research hypothesis was rejected. Findings suggest that

the frequency at which an individual glances at the target prior to skill execution may not be

determined by skill level. The ‘power’ of the study design may have contributed towards this

non-significant result. To increase the ‘power’, the researcher could have increased the

sensitivity of the test, the sample size and the number of putts. Following this, one is unable

to support the findings of Vickers (1992, 2007) who found that expert golfers displayed

significantly fewer fixations to the target than lesser-skilled golfers. One is also unable to

support the findings of Campbell and Moran (2014) who found that professional golfers

displayed less fixations to target than club-level golfers. Nevertheless, higher-skilled golfers


in the present study were not of a similar professional standard and so results must be

cautiously compared.

Higher-skilled golfers displayed on average, shorter mean glance durations than

lower-skilled golfers. This meant higher-skilled golfers performed shorter glances away from

the ball, towards the target. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would conduct

longer glances to target, the research hypothesis was subsequently rejected. A possible

explanation is that higher-skilled golfers may have possessed a more automated putting

stroke, whereas lesser-skilled required longer glances to generate improved perception and

feel. This result is surprising as it appears to dispute the majority of research, in particular,

those who found that expert players spent significantly longer focusing on the target prior to

execution than novice golfers did (Campbell & Moran, 2014; Wilson & Pearcy, 2009).

5.5 Pre-Putt Phase Verbalisations

Verbalisations were transcribed verbatim and an inductive analysis was taken to

organise recurring themes into meaningful categories. The most common verbalisations

related to gathering environmental information and planning instruction. Whilst there were a

number of common findings between groups, higher-skilled golfers employed additional

cognitive planning strategies, such as reading the line and identifying a visual line towards

the target.

Following inductive content analysis of verbalisations during the pre-putt phase of

preparation, findings highlighted some different approaches between groups. Higher-skilled

participants reported more verbalisations that related to reading the green and more

specifically, identifying a visual line towards the target. This implied that higher-skilled

golfers often attempted to identify a line from the ball into the hole. Following initial green

evaluation, the higher-skilled implemented additional planning strategies involving the

visualisation of a perceived fixed path from the ball to target. This finding supports the view


of McCaffrey and Orlick (1989) who stated that higher-skilled golfers incorporated more

detailed approaches to pre-shot planning prior to putt execution.

Some lower-skilled participants also expressed thoughts relating to visualisation

strategies, suggesting that they are also able to perform visualisations during putt preparation.

Although one lower-skilled participant demonstrated detailed verbalisations with regards to

visualisation, generally, statements lacked clarity compared to those expressed by higher-

skilled golfers. This may be due to fewer available cognitive resources throughout analysis.

In addition, solely higher-skilled golfers verbalised thoughts associated with physical

preparation, such aligning the ball logo to target and the application of practice strokes during

the pre-putt phase of preparation. It is perhaps surprising that only higher-skilled golfers

displayed these strategies, particularly thoughts regarding practice swings. The reason being

that lower-skilled golfers are often associated with being less automated and would therefore

attempt to compensate by implementing such pre-putt strategies. Whilst there is a clear verbal

demonstration of physical strategies prior to address, it must be considered that lower-skilled

golfers could have applied these strategies sub-consciously.

In the present study, results also indicated that higher and lower-skilled golfers

expressed many similar thoughts. Whilst reading the green, both groups reported thoughts

relating to an initial putt evaluation. For example, a higher-skilled participant stated “just

thinking how it’s going to change over the course of the putt”, whilst a lower-skilled

participant said, “just work out the level of the land”. This suggests that all golfers possess an

ability to weigh up long-range putts. Yet, previous research on putting appears to have

overlooked, or categorised this planning strategy differently. For example, such

verbalisations may have been included in the ‘gathering information’ category within

Calmeiro and Tenenbaum’s (2011) investigation.


Both groups also reported thoughts relating to identifying environmental conditions,

gathering environmental information and the identification of visual spots. Again, findings

indicate that amateur golfers, irrespective of skill level, are able to pick out important

information from the putting green. Whilst previous research has overlooked the

identification of environmental conditions and visual spots as aspects of putt preparation,

results appear to dispute that more expert and experienced golfers tend to report greater

attention to pre-shot planning and assessing (Beilock, et al., 2002; Calmeiro & Tenenbaum,

2011; McCaffrey & Orlick, 1989).

Both groups also expressed verbalisations linked to planning instruction, making

comments like “hit this one a bit harder” and “I’m going to give this one a little bit more”.

This result suggests that after assessing the green, both groups would incorporate planning

strategies as part of their preparation. Therefore, findings appear to question studies that

found the focus of more expert and experienced golfers’ verbalisations tended to focus on

planning to a greater extent than less expert (Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2001) and

inexperienced golfers (Beilock et al., 2002).

A final similarity between skill groups was the reoccurrence of verbalisations

regarding mental readiness. For example, one participant stated “feeling good on this putt”

and another “right this one is going in”. Comments like these could be important to both

higher and lower-skilled golfers in order to endorse inner confidence prior to putt execution.

This result supports the findings of Calmeiro and Tenenbaum (2011), who also identified a

non-significant difference between experienced and novice golfers.

5.6 Putt-Phase Verbalisations

Following inductive content analysis, clear differences between skill levels were

found. Firstly, lower-skilled golfers verbalised a greater amount of thoughts relating to

technical instruction. So, once lower-skilled participants had addressed the ball, they


expressed thoughts associated with mechanical aspects of putt execution. This result supports

the majority of research focused upon golf putting, which stated that lower-skilled performers

adopted a step by step approach to skill execution (Anderson, 1982; Beilock et al., 2002;

Calmeiro & Tenenbaum, 2011). Although some higher-skilled golfers expressed

verbalisations linked to mechanical aspects of the skill, it was evident that the lower-skilled

verbalised considerably more of these thoughts. It could be that higher-skilled golfers possess

a greater motor control automaticity and so often perform the skill without much conscious

thought. On the other hand, lesser-skilled golfers may require greater attention to the

kinematic facets of a putt.

The researcher also found that higher and lower-skilled golfers expressed similar

thoughts during the putt-phase of preparation. Emergent themes that related to visualising a

line to target and the implementation of cues were identified. Findings suggest that once the

putter had been grounded behind the ball, both groups attempted to visualise the line of the

putt in to the hole. Thoughts are in line with Pelz (2000), who regarded aim line as the most

common strategy for putting. Although, he subsequently found that golfers putt most

effectively when they identify a precise spot where the break occurs. Following this, results

from the present study found that golfers used cues to trigger execution. Although the

application of cues has yet to be investigated across skill levels in golf, it may come as a

surprise that lower-skilled golfers also applied this strategy. The reason being is that cue

words are often suggested psychological interventions, associated with positive performance

effects (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Hardy, 2006; Jackson & Wilson, 1999). Nevertheless,

it is encouraging that lower-skilled golfers in particular applied strategies that have been

heavily linked with performance improvements. Nonetheless, it may be the case that the

implementation of cues was due to the nature of the task, whereby golfers were asked to


verbalise all thoughts. Therefore, future studies could investigate the effect of cues on long-

range putting performance, particularly across skill levels.

5.7 Limitations and Future Directions

Although the study was carefully designed, a number of methodological issues were

identified. Firstly, this investigation was conducted under time constraints, resulting in a

relatively small sample size; a potential explanation for non-significant findings. As a result,

it may be difficult to generalise results from the present study to a wider population. To

improve the reliability of the study, a challenge for future researchers would be to recruit a

larger sample comprising of professional golfers and lesser-skilled club golfers with similar

handicaps to those in this study. Alternatively future studies could focus on additional skill

levels; for example, recruiting samples consisting of CONGU category one, two, three and

four golfers.

Secondly, the present study did not consider order effects; thus an order of putt

location from which participants were asked to putt from was the same for each participant.

Although order effects may not have influenced presents results, future studies should

counterbalance the putt location order (in line with Thomas, Neumann & Hoosper, 2008) in

order to yield more statistically sound data. Future researchers may also wish to increase the

number of putt locations and keep the number of putts undisclosed from participants in an

effort to maintain participant focus for each putt.

The availability of equipment was also a limitation. Firstly, the application of a

standard video camera proved unreliable; technical issues meant that 22 putts were not

analysed. Furthermore, the position of the camera on a tripod made it difficult to accurately

capture head and putter movements, so glance analysis was often subjective. Future studies

should strongly consider using eye tracking or other head mounted cameras to best analyse

glances. This would depict an accurate identification of eye fixations during putt assessment.


Moreover, further research could investigate the speed at which golfers of different skill

levels glance towards the target, so whether different skill levels tend to glance quickly and

sporadically, slowly and analytically or whether glance implementation, is of personal

preference. Following this, researchers could identify whether a correlation exists between

glance speed and long-range putting performance.

A further criticism is that participants were required to wear headphones throughout

the task; such equipment was not representative of a golfing environment. Although the

researcher ensured equipment was not restrictive, golfers are not accustomed to wearing such

equipment. The warm-up period helped to ensure participants were comfortable prior to the

task; future studies may also incorporate a warm-up period. Voice recordings also lacked

clarity at times which meant that unwanted noise, such as wind and body movements, may

have caused transcribing errors.

A further limitation was the reliability of the coding procedure. As the researcher

conducted an inductive content analysis, results are subjective. Therefore, it would be

beneficial to develop a reliable coding scheme that encompasses aspects of putt preparation.

To do this effectively, future studies should consider implementing trained coders that are

familiar with long-range putt preparation strategies. Nevertheless, it appears that the

strategies observed throughout this study, whilst planning a putt, are consistent with the

limited research that currently exists.

Finally, the variable weather and putting green conditions were another limitation of

this study. As the study was conducted under time constraints, data collection took place

during winter months and this meant coinciding with adverse weather conditions.

Subsequently, putting green conditions were inconsistent, perhaps affecting putting

performances. Although it is challenging to conduct a study with consistently fair weather

and course conditions, it is recommended that future researchers conduct a similar study


during summer months. Friendlier weather and putting green conditions may yield different

results; as faster, truer greens would enhance the severity of undulations on the putting green,

increasing the dependency on gathering environmental information and subsequent planning.

5.8 Practical Implications

This research provides one of only a handful studies that have identified expertise

differences in golf putting planning strategies. Based on these results, some suggestions could

be made in order to improve practice, education and policy. Whilst results could indeed have

some significant implications, it is perhaps inappropriate to conclude and generalise findings

purely based on this small sample. Therefore, whilst suggestions are presented, they must be

cautiously interpreted. In addition, recommendations involve preparing for putt execution,

but as it is difficult to conclude precisely why higher-skilled golfers display superior long-

range putting performances, recommendations must be seen to add to or develop on existing

practice. For example, improved pre-putt planning may not affect putting performance at all

if technical development is not also a focus.

Firstly, these findings in particular may help to improve lower-skilled golfers’ long-

range putting performances. To do this, golfers could incorporate changes themselves or

ideally seek the guidance of a PGA professional, whereby focus should be on improving the

structure of their pre-shot routines. Firstly, lower-skilled golfers should be encouraged to

evaluate the green thoroughly prior to address so that putt execution follows swiftly after.

During green assessment, golfers should identify a specific spot on the green that the ball

would roll over for a successful outcome, or alternatively, identify a specific line that the ball

would take from the putter into the hole. Secondly, lesser-skilled golfers should attempt to

avoid mechanical thoughts during preparation and more so once they have addressed the ball.

Following this, coaches should encourage lower-skilled golfers to carry out brief, essential


glances towards the target. Only brief glances are required as a detailed examination has

already taken place.

Should the present results be confirmed in subsequent studies with larger sample sizes

that correct the limitations set out previously, then they may have implications for improving

policy within golf academies. As academies are often a stepping stone to elite golf, they

could potentially benefit from these conclusions. Firstly, findings suggest that to putt

successfully, golfers must focus on putt preparation. As a result, academy coaches should

highlight the importance of efficiently reading the green and planning putt execution.

Secondly, applied sport psychologists could ensure that facilitative, rather than debilitative

thought processes, are engrained into these higher-skilled performers.


Chapter 6: Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to firstly examine the cognitive strategies employed by

higher and lower-skilled golfers during long-range putt preparation. Secondly, the researcher

attempted to identify differences between skill levels according to their putt assessment

durations, putt scores, glance frequency per putt and mean duration per glance.

Results indicated that both groups incorporated similar cognitive strategies during putt

preparation, including thoughts relating to gathering environmental information. Higher-

skilled golfers, however, employed additional cognitive and physical planning strategies and

expressed fewer mechanical thoughts. As it was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers

would report more thoughts relating to both gathering environmental information and

planning, the research hypothesis was rejected. Findings also indicated that higher-skilled

golfers recorded significantly greater putt scores; the research hypothesis was subsequently

accepted. It was also found that higher-skilled participants recorded significantly shorter

glances to target; therefore, the research hypothesis was rejected. No significant differences

were identified for total assessment duration and glance frequency per putt across skill levels.

It was hypothesised that higher-skilled golfers would spend longer assessing putts and would

display fewer glances; therefore, both hypotheses were rejected.

The limitations of this study should be taken into account when concluding results.

Nevertheless, pending support from subsequent studies, findings may have implications for

lower-skilled golfers, coaches, applied sport psychology practitioners and golf academies.

Preceding research could implement verbal protocol analysis to investigate cognitive

processes between CONGU category 1, 2, 3 and 4 golfers. Future researchers may also

determine the effect of glance speed and frequency on long-range putting performance.


References

Alexander, D. L., & Kern, W. (2005). Drive for show and putt for dough? An analysis of the

earnings of PGA Tour golfers. Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 46-60.

doi:10.1177/1527002503260797

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of a cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 24, 225–235.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369

Beilock, S. L., Wierenga, S. A., & Carr, T. H. (2002). Expertise, attention and memory in

sensorimotor skill execution: Impact of novel task constraints on dual-task

performance and episodic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Section A, 55, 1211-1240. doi:10.1080/02724980244000170

Binsch, O., Oudejans, R. R., Bakker, F. C., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (2009). Unwanted effects in

aiming actions: The relationship between gaze behavior and performance in a golf

putting task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 628-635.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.005

Boutcher, S. H. (1990). The role of performance routines in sport. In J. G. Jones, & L. Hardy

(Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 231–245). New York, NY: Wiley.

Boutcher, S. H. (1992). Attentional and athletic performance: An integrated approach. In T.

S. Horn (Eds.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 251–266). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Calmeiro, L., & Tenenbaum, G. (2011). Concurrent verbal protocol analysis in sport:

Illustration of thought processes during a golf-putting task. Journal of Clinical Sport

Psychology, 5. 223-236.

Campbell, M. (2006). An empirical investigation of expertise in golf putting and green-

reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College, Dublin, Ireland.


Campbell, M. J., & Moran, A. P. (2014). There is more to green reading than meets the eye!

Exploring the gaze behaviours of expert golfers on a virtual golf putting task.

Cognitive Processing, 15, 363-372. doi:10.1007/s10339-014-0608-2

Causer, J., Janelle, C. M., Vickers, J. N., & Williams, A. M. (2012). Perceptual expertise:

What can be trained? In N. J. Hodges, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Skill acquisition in

sport: Research, theory and practice (pp. 306-324). Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Charness, N. (1981). Search in chess: Age and skill differences. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 467-476.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.2.467

Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect

of skilled performance in chess: Evidence from eye movements. Memory &

Cognition, 29, 1146-1152.

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1

Cotterill, S. T., Sanders, R., & Collins, D. (2010). Developing effective pre-performance

routines in golf: Why don’t we ask the golfer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

22, 51–64. doi:10.1080/10413200903403216

Crews, D. J., & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). An exploratory observational behavior analysis of

professional golfers during competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 51-58.

Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal

experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the

theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981-

987. doi:10.1002/acp.925

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT-press.


French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (1999). Adaptations in response selection processes used

during sport competition with increasing age and expertise. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 30, 173-193. doi:10.1002/acp.925

French, K. E., & McPherson, S. L. (2004). Development of expertise in sport. In M. R. Weiss

(Eds.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp.

403-423). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An

introduction to research methods (2nd edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2010). Research methods for sports studies. Oxford, UK: Taylor &

Francis.

Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills:

Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 9, 45–59. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.007

Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of the self-talk literature. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 7, 81–97. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002

Jackson, R. C., & Wilson, R. (1999). Using ‘swing thoughts’ to prevent paradoxical

performance effects in golf putting. In M. R. Farrally & A. J. Cochran (Eds.), Science

and golf III: Proceedings of the world scientific congress of golf London. London,

UK: E & F. N. Spon.

Lemke, J. L. (2012). Analysing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. Second

International Handbook of Science Education, 24, 1471-1484. doi:10.1007/978-1-

4020-9041-7_94

Mackenzie, S. J., & Sprigings, E. J. (2005). Evaluation of the plumb bob method for reading

greens in putting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 81–87.

doi:10.1080/02640410410001730232


McCaffrey, N., & Orlick, T. (1989). Mental factors related to excellence among top

professional golfers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 256-278.

McPherson, S. L. (1999a). Expert-novice differences in performance skills and problem

representations of youth and adults during tennis competition. Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport, 70, 233-251. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608043

McPherson, S. L. (1999b). Tactical differences in problem representations and solutions in

collegiate varsity and beginner female tennis players. Research Quarterly for Exercise

and Sport, 70, 369-384. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608057

McPherson, S. L., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys'

tennis: Age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 190-211.

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(89)90002-7

McPherson, S. L., & Vickers, J. N. (2004). Cognitive control in motor expertise.

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 274-300.

doi:10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671746

Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M. R. (2012). Quiet eye training

expedites motor learning and aids performance under heightened anxiety: The roles of

response programming and external attention. Psychophysiology, 49, 1005-1015. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x

Moran, A. P. (1996). The psychology of concentration in sports performers: A cognitive

analysis. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2008). Think aloud: acute stress and coping strategies

during golf performances. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 21,

283-294. doi:10.1080/10615800701609207


Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on

mental processes. Psychological review, 84, 231-259.

Official World Golf Ranking (2015). Graeme McDowell world ranking. Retrieved from

http://www.owgr.com/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=7548.

Panchuk, D., & Vickers, J. N. (2013). Expert visual perception: Why having a quiet eye

matters in sport. In D. Farrow, J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport

expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory into practice (195-209). Oxford:

Routledge.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). California,

CA: Sage Publications.

Pelz, D. (2000). Dave Pelz’s putting bible: The complete guide to mastering the green. New

York, NY: Doubleday.

PGA Tour (2011). Putting statistics. Retrieved from PGA Tour official website

http://www.pgatour.com.

PGA Tour (2015). PGA Tour total putting statistic. Retrieved from

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02428.html

Shaw, D. (2002). Confidence and the pre-shot routine in golf: A case study. In I. Cockerill

(Eds.), Solutions in Sport Psychology (pp.108-119). London, UK: DC Thomson.

Singer, R. N. (1988). Strategies and meta strategies in learning and performing self-paced

athletic skills. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 49–68.

Thomas, P. R., & Over, R. (1994). Psychological and psychomotor skills associated with

performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 73-86.

Thomas, P. R., Neumann, D. L., & Hooper, S. L. (2008). Attentional focus and putting

performance at different levels of skill development. In D. J. Crews., & T. R. Lutz


(Eds.), Science and golf V: proceedings of the world scientific congress of golf (pp.

224-231). Mesa, AZ: Energy in Motion.

Vickers, J. N. (1992). Gaze control in putting. Perception, 21, 117–132. doi:10.1068/p210117

Vickers, J. N. (1996). Visual control when aiming at a far target. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 342-354.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.342

Vickers, J. N. (2011). Mind over muscle: The role of gaze control, spatial cognition, and the

quiet eye in motor expertise. Cognitive Processing, 12, 219-222. doi:10.1007/s10339-

011-0411-2

Vickers, J. N., & Williams, A. M. (2007). Performing under pressure: The effects of

physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety, and gaze control in biathlon. Journal of

Motor Behaviour, 39, 381-394. doi:10.3200/JMBR.39.5.381-394

Vickers. J. N. (2007). Perception, cognition and decision training: the quiet eye in action.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ward, P., Suss, J., Eccles, D. W., Williams, A. M., & Harris, K. R. (2011). Skill-based

differences in option generation in a complex task: A verbal protocol analysis.

Cognitive Processing, 12, 289-300. doi:10.1007/s10339-011-0397-9

Wilson, M. R., & Pearcy, R. C. (2009). Visuomotor control of straight and breaking golf

putts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 1–8. doi:10.2466/pms.109.2.555-562


Appendix A

Research Participation Information Sheet

Name of Researcher: Gregory Jason Palin

Project Title: Verbal Protocol Analysis in Golf: An Illustration of Thought Processes Whilst

Reading Long-Range Putts

What is the purpose of the study?

The aim of this study is to provide a new insight into how lesser-skilled and higher-skilled

golfers plan and read long-range putts prior to the stroke itself. The results aim to improve

putting performance in practice and competition by using more effective cognitive strategies

during the planning and preparation stages of long-range putts. Ultimately, this study hopes

to highlight the importance of reading long putts effectively and may lead to more effective

pre-shot routines amongst all levels of amateur golfers.

Why have I been selected to take part?

The study involves two different groups of golfers: one group of ten participants with

CONGU handicaps of below 5.0 and ten participants with CONGU handicaps of above 19.5.

What will I have to do?

Prior to the task there will be a ten minute warm up period which will allow participants to

practice talking aloud and to adjust to the speed of the greens. Then, participants will perform

a total of twelve 25 foot putts on a putting green. Putts will be taken from different locations.

The study itself requires the participants to verbalise their thoughts throughout the read up

until the putt itself. Headphones utilising a voice recorder (placed in the trouser pocket) will

record this verbal data and the use of a video camera (placed on a tripod in three different

locations) will identify where the participant tends to focus their eyes throughout the read.

What are the risks?

There is a very small potential risk of being struck by a golf ball by a golfer playing a hole

close by the practice putting green. Prior to the study, participants will be reinforced of the

‘fore’ safety signal in case of such an event and will be told to be aware of any other golfers

around the practice putting green.

Do I have the right to withdraw from the study?

Involvement in this research project is entirely voluntary and participants have the right to

withdraw at any time without consequence.

How will confidentiality be assured?

Confidentiality of data and the protection of identity when publishing the results are

paramount unless consent is obtained.

If I require further information who should I contact? Mr Gregory Palin

[email protected]

07929465077


Appendix B

Informed Consent Sheet

Name of Researcher: Gregory Jason Palin

Project Title: Verbal Protocol Analysis in Golf: An Illustration of Thought Processes Whilst

Reading Long-Range Putts

Participant Name:

Age:

Exact Handicap:

Competitive Golf Experience (Years):

Participants to read

The details of the task have been explained to me fully?

I have read and understand all potential benefits of the study?

I have read and understand all potential risks associated with the task and am aware of

the safety procedures?

Have any questions I have about the task been answered?

I am aware that I am able to pull out of the task at any moment without consequence.

I am aware that my personal details will remain confidential.

Signature of Participant: Date:


Appendix C

Data Collection Sheet

Checklist

-Tape Measure -Video camera -Tripod

- Voice recorder -12 Golf Balls -Putter

- Tees

Putt score – Hole (4 pts), within 1’ (3 pts), within 2’ (2 pts) and within 3’ (1pt)

Area Putt 1 Putt 2 Putt 3

A (uphill)

B (right-to-left)

C (downhill)

D (left-to-right)

Putt Assessment Duration

Putt Putt Assessment Duration (s)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Mean Putt Assessment Duration:

sp3022 dissertation complete

Documents