Video Modeling on Shot-Put Acquisition

September 28, 2026 updated by: Nejmeddine Ouerghi, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef

Video Modeling Variants and Temporal Scheduling Effects on Shot-Put Acquisition

Video modeling is widely used in motor skill instruction, yet its optimal modality and timing within a session remain unclear, particularly for complex athletic tasks. This study compared three video feedback modalities, including video self-modeling, video expert-modeling, and peer-to-peer learning video, administered at three session phases (warm-up, during the learning session, and after the learning session) on shot-put learning outcomes in novice university students. Sport science students aged 19-25 years were assigned to nine experimental groups and one control group in a 3 × 3 between-subjects factorial randomized controlled trial over nine weeks. Physical performance, technical score, selective attention, and episodic memory were assessed at three time points: the predictive session test (week 1), formative session test (week 5), and summative session test (week 9).

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Video modeling is widely used in motor skill instruction, yet the optimal video modality and timing within a training session remain unclear, particularly for complex athletic skills. This study compared three video-based learning modalities, including video self-modeling, video expert-modeling, and peer-to-peer learning video, administered at three different phases of a training session (during the warm-up, during the learning session, or after the learning session) on shot-put learning outcomes in novice university students. A total of 176 university students (122 males and 54 females) participated in the study. Participants were allocated to 10 groups, consisting of one control group and nine experimental groups, with group sizes ranging from 16 to 20 participants. The groups were based on existing administrative classes. The 10 groups were: (1) control group (n = 20); (2) peer-to-peer learning video during warm-up (n = 19); (3) video expert-modeling during warm-up (n = 17); (4) video self-modeling during warm-up (n = 17); (5) peer-to-peer learning video during the learning session (n = 16); (6) video expert-modeling during the learning session (n = 17); (7) video self-modeling during the learning session (n = 17); (8) peer-to-peer learning video after the learning session (n = 19); (9) video expert-modeling after the learning session (n = 17); and (10) video self-modeling after the learning session (n = 17). Shot-put learning outcomes were assessed using physical performance (throwing distance), technical performance score, release velocity, selective attention, and episodic memory. Assessments were conducted at three time points: the predictive session test at week 1, the formative session test at week 5, and the summative session test at week 9.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

176

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Boulifa
      • El Kef, Boulifa, Tunisia, 7100
        • Nejmeddine Ouerghi

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

19 years to 25 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Aged 19-25 years.
  • Enrolled as a sport science student.
  • No prior competitive experience in shot put.
  • Regularly engaged in sports practice for approximately 6 hours per week.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of musculoskeletal injury affecting upper-limb or trunk function
  • Sustaining a neuromuscular or sensorimotor injury during the experimental protocol
  • Absence from more than two learning sessions.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Peer-to-peer learning video group during warm-up

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the warm-up in each learning session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video expert modeling group during warm-up

Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks.

Students watched a video demonstration of the shot put by an expert during 5-min, at a time that differed according to the condition: during warm-up phase (post-warm-up transition interval), during the session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video self-modeling group during warm-up

Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Peer-to-peer learning video group during learning

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video expert modeling group during learning

Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Students watched a video demonstration of the shot put by an expert during 5-min, at a time that differed according to the condition: during warm-up phase (post-warm-up transition interval), during the session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video self-modeling group during learning

Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Peer-to-peer learning video group after learning

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video expert modeling group after learning

Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Students watched a video demonstration of the shot put by an expert during 5-min, at a time that differed according to the condition: during warm-up phase (post-warm-up transition interval), during the session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Experimental: Video self-modeling group after learning

Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks.

Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos for 5 minutes at a time that differed according to the condition: during the warm-up phase in each learning session (post-warm-up transition interval), during the learning session (the final shot-put simulation exercise), or after the learning session (the cool-down phase).

Active Comparator: Control group

Participants in the control group maintained their normal learning activities in physical education.

The same shot-put learning program was implemented without the use of video-based learning.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Shot-put throwing distance (m)
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

The distance of the shot-put throw, measured in meters. The best performance across three trials at each assessment was used for analysis

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Shot-put technical execution score
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Technical execution was assessed by two independent raters using a standardized evaluation grid covering five phases of the throw: preparation, push, inclination, extension, and follow-through. Each phase was rated on a three-point scale (1 = not achieved, 2 = partially achieved, 3 = fully achieved), yielding a total score ranging from 5 to 15 points. The mean score across the three trials at each assessment was used for analysis

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Shot-put release velocity (m/s)
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Shot release velocity, expressed in m/s, was determined from video recordings using Kinovea motion analysis software

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Go/No-Go response time (ms)
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Response time during Go trials was recorded in milliseconds using the Go/No-Go task administered through the CogniFit online cognitive assessment platform.

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Go/No-Go inhibitory control accuracy (%)
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Inhibitory control was assessed using the Go/No-Go task. Accuracy during No-Go trials was recorded as the percentage of correct responses using the CogniFit online cognitive assessment platform.

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
d2 attention test performance
Time Frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

The d2 attention test was used to assess selective attention by requiring participants to identify target stimuli among distracting stimuli within a limited time. The percentage of correct responses and the total time required to complete the task, measured in milliseconds, were recorded at each assessment.

Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Nejmeddine Ouerghi, Research Unit "Sport Sciences, Health and Movement"(UR22JS01) High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Kef, University of Jendouba, 7100 Kef, Tunisia.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Actual)

June 17, 2026

Study Completion (Actual)

June 17, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 22, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 28, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

September 30, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 30, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 28, 2026

Last Verified

September 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • NJ_MB_Video_Modeling

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.