Circuit games for young archers: Yachsie 2023

The study builds a six-station circuit model for young archers and tests it on thirty children aged 10 to 13 over eighteen meetings. The development path follows the ADDIE scheme, in five phases, and closes with two tests: one validating the product with experts and one of effectiveness with the children.

The six stations mix a balance task, an arm task and shooting a few arrows. In order: heel walking, boards and shooting; stepping onto the block, walking with the bow and shooting; walking on the toes, walking on bottles and shooting; bosu ball, bench press-ups and shooting; ankle zig-zag, walking with the hoop and shooting; ankle marbles, lifting the body at the bench and shooting.

In the effectiveness test, all four measures rise between before and after, with a paired-sample t-test and p = 0.000 in all four cases: balance on the stork stand test from 21.47 to 23.07 (t = 8.339), concentration on the Grid Concentration Test from 13.63 to 15.90 (t = 7.779), arm endurance on the Holding Bow Digitec Test from 14.53 to 15.77 (t = 7.223) and the score over 36 arrows at 30 metres from 243.60 to 249.60 out of 360 (t = 8.939). The gain in shooting is 6 points, that is 1.7% and about 0.17 points per arrow.

The validation is done with Likert-scale questionnaires completed by six experts holding professorships or doctorates and by one coach. The material scores 88.33%, the contents 88.10% and the language 88.89%; on the presentation side, the size scores 83.33%, the cover 87.96% and the layout of the contents 86.84%. All the values fall into the «appropriate» category.

The design is research and development, built on Lee and Owens's ADDIE model: analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. The first part of the study validates the product, the second tests it on the children.

For the validation, seven assessors, six of them holding a professorship or doctorate and one an archery coach, completed modified Likert-scale questionnaires. The questionnaire on the material covers the suitability of the material, the contents and the language; the one on presentation covers size, cover and layout of the contents. Results are reported as score obtained over maximum score and as a percentage, with an associated category.

For the effectiveness test, thirty archers aged 10 to 13 followed the circuit for eighteen meetings, with measurements before and after. The four measures are: balance with the stork stand test, that is the time balancing on one leg; concentration with the Grid Concentration Test, in which numbers are found in a grid within a given time; arm endurance with the Holding Bow Digitec Test, taken from Prasetyo and colleagues in 2022; and accuracy with 36 arrows at 30 metres, summing the score of each arrow.

The analysis is quantitative: descriptive analysis for the validation and a paired-sample t-test for effectiveness. The study states that it follows the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and has approval from the ethics committee of Yogyakarta State University. The duration and frequency of the eighteen meetings, the length of each session, the number of arrows shot per station, repetitions and progression are not reported, and there are no baseline characteristics of the sample, not even its composition by sex.

There is no control group. Thirty children aged 10 to 13 were measured before and after eighteen meetings, and over that period they also went on training, grew, and took the same four tests a second time. At these ages an improvement in balance, strength and attention over a few months is what anyone would expect even without an intervention. The study has no way of separating the circuit's effect from those of growth, of usual training and of familiarity with the tests.

The second problem concerns the shooting measure. At all six stations of the circuit, arrows are shot. The group that improves in accuracy is therefore also the group that shot extra arrows, over eighteen meetings: the gain of 6 points out of 360 cannot be attributed to balance, concentration or arm endurance, because the intervention also contained shooting practice.

Little of the results is left to check. The table gives the means, the t value and the significance, and nothing else: no standard deviations, no confidence intervals, no effect sizes. Without the variability there is no judging whether an improvement of 1.6 units in balance or 1.24 in endurance matters. Significance is reported as p = 0.000 in all four cases, which is an impossible notation: a p-value is never zero. The units of three tests out of four are not stated: 21.47 and 23.07 for balance are presumably seconds, 14.53 and 15.77 for endurance presumably seconds holding the bow, but the text does not say so.

Two of the four instruments have problems of their own. The Grid Concentration Test improves on its own when repeated, because anyone who has taken it knows the search strategy: a rise of 2.3 on second administration, with no control group, does not separate the effect of training from that of practising the test. The stork stand test has modest repeatability, and here it was used as the main measure of balance. The Holding Bow Digitec Test comes from a single paper of 2022 and is not a widely used instrument, so external evidence on its reliability is missing.

The validation part measures no outcome at all. It is the judgement of seven people on a questionnaire about the product, expressed as percentages around 88%, with no inter-rater agreement, no individual items and no link to what the circuit produces in the children. In the text the outcome of this part is presented as a conclusion of the research, but it remains an expert opinion.

Basic information is also missing: the number of weeks covered by the eighteen meetings, the length of the sessions, how many arrows were shot, the repetitions of the stations and the progression, and any characteristic of the sample beyond age. The model described is therefore not reproducible as written.

The reusable part of this study is not the figures but the idea of a structure. Six stations, each with an unstable balance task, an arm task and a few arrows straight afterwards: it is a way of training 10 to 13 year olds that holds conditioning and shooting together without turning the session into a gym class. Anyone working with youngsters at a club finds a ready-made format here, not a dose: repetitions, timings and the number of arrows are not reported.

The gain in shooting, on the other hand, should be taken for what it is. The score goes from 243.60 to 249.60 out of 360, that is 6 points over 36 arrows, about 0.17 points per arrow. Over eighteen meetings, in children of that age, 6 points sit within what comes from going on shooting and growing: there was no comparison group doing only the usual training, and arrows were shot at every station of the circuit. Anyone citing this study as evidence that balance and concentration raise the score is crediting the circuit with an effect that may come from the extra arrows.

How the tests are built is also worth noting, because they are tests any club can run: timed single-leg balance, a number grid for attention, a timed hold of the bow in the shooting position, and 36 arrows at 30 metres. They are four cheap and repeatable measures, useful for watching how a young archer changes over time. With the caveat that the number grid improves on its own when repeated, so an improvement on a second attempt says little without a comparison.

One last piece of context for anyone coaching young archers: these thirty 10 to 13 year olds shot 36 arrows at 30 metres scoring about 6.8 points per arrow. It is a useful reference point, and a rare one for that age band.