Comparing Forward and Backward Chaining in Teaching Olympic Weightlifting James W

The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Faculty Publications Winter 1-1-2019 Comparing Forward and Backward Chaining In Teaching Olympic Weightlifting James W. Moore University of Southern Mississippi, [email protected] Laura M. Quintero University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Moore, J. W., Quintero, L. M. (2019). Comparing Forward and Backward Chaining In Teaching Olympic Weightlifting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(1), 50-59. Available at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs/16319 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 50–59 NUMBER 1(WINTER) COMPARING FORWARD AND BACKWARD CHAINING IN TEACHING OLYMPIC WEIGHTLIFTING JAMES W. MOORE AND LAURA M. QUINTERO UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI The popularity of Olympic-style weightlifting in fitness routines is growing, but participating in these exercises with improper technique places lifters at increased risk for injury. Fitness training professionals have developed multiple teaching strategies, but have not subjected these strategies to systematic evaluation, particularly with novice lifters. Two strategies recommended by professional training organizations are akin to forward and backward chaining, which have been shown effective at teaching other novel, complex behaviors. The present study compared these forward- and backward-chaining-like strategies to teach novice lifters “the clean” and “the snatch,” two Olympic weightlifting movements frequently incorporated into high-intensity training programs. Participants performed lifts taught with forward chaining more accurately than lifts taught with backward chaining. Key words: behavioral chaining, forward chaining, backward chaining, behavioral skills training, video feedback The clean and the snatch are two complex CrossFit™, which include the clean and snatch weightlifting movements that first appeared in as part of their program. the Olympic Games in 1896 as a men’s event Increased participation in any exercise pro- and was added in 2000 as a women’s event gram offers many health benefits, but weighted (Chiu & Schilling, 2005). These lifts involve movements come with an increased risk of approaching a weighted bar on the ground, and injury relative to alternative forms of exercise engaging in a forceful, coordinated movement (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that results in the bar resting either across the 2015). In a review of six years of injury records shoulders (i.e., the clean) or above the head from two United States Olympic Training (i.e., the snatch), followed by a full squat. Centers, Calhoon and Fry (1999) found Although initially popular among competitive 560 reports of training-related injuries and an weightlifters, these and other Olympic-style lifts estimated 3.3 injuries per 1000 weightlifting have become increasingly common in the fit- hours, with the most common injuries occur- ness plans of novice weightlifters with an esti- ring to the back, knees, and shoulders. In a sur- mated 70% increase over the past 20 years vey of 566 adult CrossFit™ participants, 31% (Burke, Bell, Al-Adawi, Dorvlo, & Burke, reported experiencing an exercise-related injury 2014; Keogh, 2009). This increased popularity (Sprey et al., 2016). These injury risks are is likely associated with the increased popularity increased by improper technique (Stone, Fry, of high-intensity exercise programs, such as Ritchie, Stoesel-Ross, & Marsit, 1994). Many novice lifters will recruit training from James W. Moore is now with Canopy Children’s Solu- coaches or personal trainers prior to attempting tions, Jackson, MS. Laura M. Quintero is now with Mis- lifts independently. Although those associated sissippi State University. fi Correspondence concerning this article should be with professional weightlifting have identi ed addressed to James W. Moore, Director of Autism proper lifting techniques to minimize injury ’ Solutions. Canopy Children s Solutions. 1465 Lakeland and maximize exercise gains, there has been no Drive, Jackson, MS 39216. Contact: james.moore@ mycanopy.org. published research on strategies to teach these doi: 10.1002/jaba.517 techniques to novice weightlifters. Instead, © 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 50 FORWARD VERSUS BACKWARD CHAINING 51 most coaches and trainers rely on their personal motor sequences to children. However, these experience to guide trainees (Takano, 1993). In authors have suggested that unique tasks may the absence of systematic evaluation, two gen- lend themselves to either forward or backward eral models for training Olympic-style lifts have chaining; Olympic-style weightlifting may be emerged among trainers (Everett, 2012; Pen- one such task. dlay, 2010; Takano, 1993). Interestingly, both Given the growing popularity of Olympic- models share tactics familiar to behavior ana- lifting exercise and the increased risk of injury lysts. For instance, both models involve divid- associated with these lifts, a systematic evalua- ing the lifting movements into segments (what tion of teaching techniques is warranted. It is behavior analysts would consider a task analy- possible that a systematic evaluation of methods sis), teaching the segments in isolation, and used to teach these specific, popular exercises then combining individual segments into a will result in recommendations as to the most chain of responses (similar to what behavior efficacious teaching procedure. Use of a more analysts would consider chaining). The first efficacious teaching procedure may result in model, often referred to as a “bottom-up” tech- fewer injuries. Therefore, we compared com- nique, teaches lifts from the floor (i.e., the mon coaching techniques that share similarities starting point) and progressively adds segments to forward and backward chaining in teaching as they would appear in the lift (similar to for- two components of Olympic weightlifting. We ward chaining). The second model, often specifically targeted the clean and the snatch referred to as a “top-down” technique, teaches motions with four adult participants. lifts from later segments and adds segments in reverse order (similar to backward chaining). METHOD The primary distinction between the “top- down” technique and backward chaining is that Participants, Setting, and Materials the former teaches movements within segments We recruited four participants from a Cross- in a forward order, but chains segments in Fit™ exercise program that included Olympic backward order. lifting as a common training component in the Behavior analysts have demonstrated the effi- Southern United States. Each participant cacy of both forward and backward chaining in passed a basic fitness assessment using the teaching skills such as corsage making (Hur & Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire Osborne, 1993), operating a washing machine (Adams, 1999) and received an acceptable score (McDonnell & McFarland, 1988), tying a shoe- on the Functional Movement Screen™ lace knot (Rayner, 2011), and hitting a baseball (Minick et al., 2010); both assessments were (Simek & O’Brien, 1988). Studies comparing administered by the first author, who was certi- the efficacy of forward and backward chaining fied as a Level One coach by the USA Weigh- have yielded inconsistent results across studies. tlifting Association and as an Olympic Weiss (1978) found forward chaining more effi- weightlifting coach by CrossFit™ at the time cacious in teaching undergraduates to complete of the study. All participants were required to contrived tasks. Walls, Zane, and Ellis (1981) receive a physical examination and clearance to found similar outcomes between chaining participate from their physician. methods in teaching individuals with mild to Patrick was a 58-year-old man in good moderate intellectual delays to assemble a bicy- health who had less than 1 month experience cle brake, a meat grinder, and a carburetor. Slo- with Olympic weightlifting and reported no cum and Tiger (2011) found similar efficacy prior athletic training. Lee was a 32-year-old with forward and backward chaining in teaching woman in good health who had less than 52 JAMES W. MOORE and LAURA M. QUINTERO 1 month experience with Olympic weightlift- rubber coated) weighing 1 and 2.5 kg. Finally, ing. Though an avid runner, Lee had no formal during testing sessions, male participants used a athletic training. George was a 45-year-old man standard 2.13-m long, 28-mm diameter Olym- with a history of high blood pressure who had pic barbell weighing 20 kg with a loading sleeve 3 months experience with Olympic weightlift- length of 41.28 cm. Female participants used a ing. He played football in high school and col- standard 2.08-m long, 25-mm diameter Olym- lege and competed in powerlifting during his pic barbell weighing 15 kg with a loading sleeve 20s and early 30s. Despite his experience, his length of 31.75 cm. Both male and female bar- lifting form contained critical errors that placed bells had two outer knurls and one center knurl. him at risk for injury. Valerie was a 25-year-old Weight was added to these bars using the same woman in good health with less than 1 month plates described previously.

Load more