TargetTalk

I have found an interesting diagnostics regarding motivation in sports.
It was developed 2004 at the University of Stuttgart, Germany (Schuler et. al., department of cognitive psychology).
The reliability coefficient (Cronach's alpha) is indicated as .96. Its called Achievement Motivation Inventory,
the test manual being published by Hogrefe, an accepted scientific publisher.

The instrument differentiates between seventeen dimensions or 'achievement orientations':

COMPENSATORY EFFORT: willingness to expend extra effort to avoid failure,
COMPETITIVENESS: drive to win and be better and faster than others.
CONFIDENCE IN SUCCESS: belief in capacity to achieve even difficult goals stemming from a belief in own knowledge, skills and abilities.
DOMINANCE: tendency to exercise power over others, to take initiative and to control over activities.
EAGERNESS TO LEARN: thirst for knowledge and striving to learn new things, even in the absence of external reward.
ENGAGEMENT: capacity to maintain a high level of activity, usually work related, for long periods with little rest.
FEARLESSNESS: degree of absence of a fear of failing at difficult tasks.
FLEXIBILITY: willingness to accept changes and enjoyment of challenging new tasks.
FLOW: capacity to maintain long periods of concentration without being distracted; likelihood of becoming lost to the outside world and absorbed in a task.
GOAL SETTING: tendency to set goals and make long term plans for achieving these.
INDEPENDENCE: preference for making own decisions andworking at own pace and tendency to take responsibility for one's own actions.
INTERNALITY: attribution of own success to own actions and efforts rather than to situational variables or luck.
PERSISTENCE: Tenacity and energy given to task completion.
PREFERENCE FOR DIFFICULT TASKS: tendency to seek out challenging rather than easy tasks and desire to seek greater challenges once earlier ones have been met.
PRIDE IN PRODUCTIVITY: enjoyment and satisfaction derived from achievement, from doing one's best and from improving on performance.
SELF-CONTROL: capacity to delay gratification and to organise oneself and one's work.
STATUS ORIENTATION: desire to gain high status in one's personal life and to progress professionally.

An online version of this is available (until mid-September) , free of charge, containing a subset of the original AMI tailored to the needs of psychology of sports. The procedure is: register with your email at the website, when you receive the link to the test (some 2 hours later), go there and answer 98 questions online. Submit and after another hour you receive a 5 page analysis with your results.

Observe however, TANSTAAFL rules: The real price-tag for this reads "test language and analysis are in German..."

I placed the link to the test on our trainer page: http://www.svlondorf1969.de/Trainer.html

Asa:

Dangit! My Austrian exchange students have gone back to Steyr. Thanks for the tip . . . sounds like intersting work. Would need to know the details of exactly what they did, how they did it, and the nature of the findings to put in context thoughof course.

Are they suggesting you can predict an athlete's commitment level by having them fill out a 98 question questionnaire?

Steve Swartz

Asa , Did you find any indicators that support developement of the characteristics through individual effort or were the characteristics permenantly part of the individuals character? Thanks, Good Shooting Bill Horton

Yes indeed! This is the good question! ;)
I cut 98 questions to one "simple one".... One check for amount of cost of one of your's "not successfully working yet pistols"....
Here is two benefits: If the shooter is not motivated enough we can't meet each other.....this is good one :)

"Noah Vosen: [in car, on cell phone] Perhaps we can arrange a meet.
Jason Bourne: Where are you now?
Noah Vosen: I'm sitting in my office.
Jason Bourne: I doubt that.
Noah Vosen: Why would you doubt that?
Jason Bourne: If you were in your office right now we'd be having this conversation face-to-face.
[Bourne hangs up] "
I like it too..... :)

If the shooter motivated... he will be ready to make extra steps toward his future improvement.... Goal is start make him to think proactive as a winner who can make some changes in his life ( don't tell me you can't make extra money in USA....) Making him not comfortable with payment I'm making him ready to accept extra work and extra changes in his current development...... I'm not making living on it :) I do not care if he will pay or not... but I know 99% if he do not pay.... it will be waste of my time to work with this student.... but I have more important things to do in my life instead to work with some one who not motivated enough, Sorry!
It’s still working well for them so far :)

Get motivated first!
And get good mentor who will lead you toward your own success!
Good shooting to all!
Russ

P.S. Yes those 98 questions can really help you to understand who you really are: true collector or true recriational target shooter. :)))

Questioningly, Steve Swartz wrote: Are they suggesting you can predict an athlete's commitment level by having them fill out a 98 question questionnaire?

The commitment level is predicted by how many of the questions are answered...

Sorry! I'll go back to my studies now...

Seriously, as we already know, commitment is a real key. Personally, my commitment has fallen greatly, as has my performance. I'm just short of calling it quits. All my "positive" preaching has now turned to a very negative personal attitude (part of why my TT participation has been low). As Steve once said, the more you learn, the more you discover that you don't know. I guess I'm tired of that.

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

Ed,

I would never want to ask you to do something that you didn't want to do, but I would like to mention something. A lot of us have benefited a tremendous amount from reading your postings about things you "don't know." (I wish I "didn't know" half as much as you "don't know"!) I hope that you will want to continue posting to Target Talk, even if you don't maintain a completely positive attitude. Many of us have in the past experienced, or are now experiencing, periods of negativity and doubt about what we're doing. Sometimes, we even come out the other side with a more resilient positive attitude. When you doubt, you can't perform well, but you can learn.

Best wishes,
FredB

.....As Steve once said, the more you learn, the more you discover that you don't know......

Some one said it before Steve....., :( Sorry it was ancient Greek Philosopher PLATO.
“This I know - that I know nothing.”

Ed, I don’t know you personally but yours posts is very beneficial to this forum and for people who like to get involved in ISSF shooting. You are Cool!
Russ

I like Plato too....

...... “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”
Plato

..... “People are like dirt. They can either nourish you and help you grow as a person or they can stunt your growth and make you wilt and die.”
Plato

Ed:

Amen, brother! I often wonder where the "break even point" is between "extrinsic"costs/benefits and "intrinsic" costs/benefits.

Sometimes the "noise" is like a tidal force . . . too many egos, hucksters, and dillettantes.

But that's just my ppov.

Steve Swartz

Steve,

Stop pigeonholing me.

I'm the best at peddling my amateurishness.

Keith

Perfect . . . 3 for 3!

Thanks for cheering me up; I really needed that!

Steve

2650 Plus wrote:..any indicators that support developement of the characteristics through individual effort or were the characteristics permenantly part of the individuals character..

Hello Bill,

I think the test alone cannot answer this. It reflects the ideas of the designers. As such, it scores the answers by the dimensions conceived. An analysis is necessary.
I do think that

(A) the scores of an individual will vary over time. (Imagine the shooter John Doe taking the test at the age of 12 and again 50 years later.
For the dimensions 'independence' and 'self-control' for example, I would assume him now to reach higher scores due to increased maturity..)

(B) Suppose our John Doe would score low on fearlessness and would come to his trainer asking for advice. The advice might be to go for
some autogenic training (or similar). After some exposure to that and positive experience with the method I would expect John Doe to score differently for this dimension.

A personal example after having done the test:

On nearly all dimensions I scored consistently except a noticeable drop on flow (defined as: capacity to maintain long periods of concentration without being distracted; likelihood of becoming lost to the outside world and absorbed in a task). This reflects my reality - and I was positively surprised that the test detected it...

The arising question is: Since motivation is the driver of success, should I do something about that very dimension?

My present decision: NO, but have this on a sort of watch-list for later inspection. And this is the rationale for my decision:
My experience with the flow state is mixed:
Yes, while being in the flow the pellets hit the 'X' with ease.
However, leaving this state comes gradually - and in this period I spoil the results:

Typically, a result of 50 in flow state (In AP I shoot 12 strings with 5 rounds each) is followed by a result of 42 or so when it wears off.

Therefore after a couple of these experiences, as soon as I become aware of this "being lost to the outside" state-of-mind I step back
(mentally) and ask myself: Is my focus where it should be according to my shot plan? - This conscious effort either strangles the flow
or at least reduces it to a controllable level. It is better to have a 48 followed by a 48 than having a 50 followed by a 42.

best regrds

Axel

Axel wrote:On nearly all dimensions I scored consistently except a noticeable drop on flow (defined as: capacity to maintain long periods of concentration without being distracted; likelihood of becoming lost to the outside world and absorbed in a task). This reflects my reality - and I was positively surprised that the test detected it...

I question the true validity of this factor for shooting. The only time you should be intensely focused is during the shot itself. All the rest of the time you should relax your focus. If you are trying to concentrate too hard for an entire two hours of Free Pistol, you're going to have quite a time of it. I like to use the example of how a cheetah chases prey. During a brief instant it exerts a tremendous pulse of muscle contraction to make its bound and then relaxes almost totally between bounds. In shooting we should bring our focus down to only the shot and then after the shot come back to a relaxed state. So, I feel an ebb and flow of concentration is a more common shooting routine.

Is it possible that your test result was detecting your shooting rhythm? And, that in reality, your concentration, if judged based on shooting specifically, would score better?

Take Care,
Ed Hall
http://www.airforceshooting.org/
http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/

P.S. Thanks for the encouragement, guys...

Ed:

Spot on with the "ebb and flow" comment.

We must maintain a peak level of focus intensity for maybe 3-5 seconds- the purpose of the shot plan is to get us there for the release of the the shot.

We then must transition to a state of almost complete relaxation, then cycle back for hte next shot.

I have often wondered if maybe ADHD folks would have a "natural advantage" for IPSC type events, while Asperger's/OCD/Autism folks would do better in international slow fire events for this reason.

Anyhow

I think most of us (?) experience two cycles: the microcycle of the individual shot, where we must manage intensity of focus and relaxation; and 2) the mesocycle of the match, where our mental energy level naturally peaks and flags over time.

Of course

- Knowing when to abort the shot (intensity of focus goals not met) and
- Knowing when to take a break (energy deficit)

is pretty much what separates the top performers from everyone else.

Assuming, of course, we all know how to shoot a ten in the first place!*

Steve

*not to be taken for granted. I note a dismaying amount of disagreement over this; at least in this forum. My personal pet peeve in this regard is, of course, the misguided (IMNSHO) reliance on "hold" as a prerequisite for a good shot process.

Good evening Ed,

firstly, the test is not desigend specifically for shooting, instead it seems to be applicable to a wide range of sport activities from chess to fishing, marathon and shooting (just going for some extreme examples).
Secondly, the recent test experience biased me and I cannot swim the same river twice meaning a second test would would be quite unreliable..

But I think I see what you mean. The questions were not as obvious as "have you ever been in the flow" but more like "during sport activities is there anything else on your mind" type of questions.

Your cheetah example sounds intriguing at first. But this is probably more an analogy. If being in between bounds means the time the animal is not earthbound, I would not call that relaxed as the picture shows:



Its extremities, the head and back are seemingly under considerable tension - and far from being limp/relaxed.

But again, I agree with you: "During the shot itself" should be a moment of peak concentration.
Ebb and flow of concentration is not what is usually associated with Flow. Instead (from wikipedia):

Flow is the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus

.. and thus more than the mere absence of distractions from shooting like "did I lock my car..", "what did the boss mean whe (s)he said.."
Indeed, when I read the flow part explanation of the test I was immediately reminded to one of your earlier posts regarding unconscious shooting.

Somewhere along the line we have to stop trying to shoot on paper (with words) and actually shoot on paper. Take the complex and make it simple. Technical gibberish does not put the shots on center. I have become rather tired of trying to explain to myself how I shoot. Maybe the common denominator finally soaked in. Simplicity. No stinking thinking. Eye on sight. Hold tight. Squeeze right.

And follow through....

Good evening jackh,

exactly how you do what you do is not the issue of the described test (for this there is indeed exhaustive coverage), instead the point is:

..diagnostics regarding motivation in sports..

in other words: What mental constituents drive you to do what you do

best regards

Axel

I cannot comment on IPSC, never shot or coached it. International rifle, mostly. I have seen a wide variety of strategies that worked (if we define success as winning medals at the national/international level). One common factor was persistence. Refusing to give up. Beyond that, I can't say as I have seen many other common factors. The comment on "hold" is interesting. Some folks believe that is all you need. I don't agree, but if you don't have a decent hold, you won't get very far. One of many factors. Expand it out to shot execution, the entire process, the five or seven or whatever steps needed. That gets you closer. It still comes down to the overall 'commitment to excellence'. That can take many shapes. You need some basic physical skills as well. I rather doubt a written test can predict success in more than a small number of athletes, any more than the SAT's can predict success in life. The danger is taking the test as gospel, and dumping anyone who does not measure up. One aspect, may help a little in training emphasis, but not absolute.

Good morning Tim.

I first had to read the wikipedia article on the SAT because in Germany admission to a university is generally handled in a different way. From what I concluded it would be a misuse to predict success in life by the SAT score.

I have not advocated to use the described test to predict the success as a shooter. I am a bit confused: My (German) understanding of test is: A test is a snapshot. Nothing more, nothing less. Drawing a conclusion is something very different and not part of the test. Since it was said 'a test predicts..' we seem to use the concept differently?
Maybe an analogy helps for understanding why I find the test interesting:

My bodily dimensions are known to me - for this reason I look for a Levis in the size of 38/32. Without that knowledge I would have to try several sizes till I find a fitting one. (32 will probably not change. 38 is a present, possibly transient state - an increment/decrement depends on my habits.)

Coming back to the suggested dimensions of motivation:
(A)
For all aspects of shooting in general and for mental training in particular the rule I heard quite often is: have a differentiated vocabulary.
(The rationale: The more detailed the descriptions of the shot and its (pre)conditions are, the more "screws" exist for adjustment.
Example: Consider Jackh's earlier post "Squeeze Right" . Is that sufficient or could/should you look here ( image: http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus415.html , description: http://www.bartleby.com/107/125.html ) and work on the isolation of the index finger's m. flexor profundis to avoid the effect of thumbing/jerking/.. ? In my experience I would be better off with "Squeeze Straight", but I would lose the rhyme here..)

For the dimensions of motivation: The more complete the vocabulary about mental drivers is, the better one can work on it (or discuss the matter). "Commitment to excellence" is a term on which we may or may not have the same understanding. I understand this term as being a cluster of competitiveness, engagement, persistence, self-control, internality, goal-setting, compensatory effort. What would you include/exclude?

(B)
If a trainer wishes to to help someone developing his skills he can generally chose between different types of objectives (cognitive, affective and psychomotor).
Lets say A has high scores on the motivation dimensions of independence, eagerness to learn, self control and maybe preference for difficult tasks (see initial post).
The trainer might say then: For this person I need cognitive objectives, little psychomotor ones and no affective objectives.
I help A more with direction than with tight supervision.
Different scores for B might suggest just the opposite.

best regards
Axel

PS: While writing this: Maybe I am too German.. After all some people say: "Being German means to do things for the sake of themselves.."

Tim Conrad wrote: <snip> The comment on "hold" is interesting. Some folks believe that is all you need. I don't agree, but if you don't have a decent hold, you won't get very far.

I'm with Steve on this, you don't need a 9-ring hold to shoot 9's or a 10-ring hold to shoot 10's. A smaller hold pattern should in theory make it easier to shoot more 10's purely based on statistics. But that is completely different to saying you can't shoot very high scores with a relatively poor hold, because we all know you can. Hold is just one element of the shooting activity, but I would argue that's it's most deffinately not the most important.

Rob.