Motor LearningNCT07849504
Video Modeling on Shot-Put Acquisition
A study testing Video expert Modeling, Video self-modeling and Peer-to-peer learning video in people with Motor Learning and Physical Activities, run by High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef at 1 site in Tunisia.
Trial summary
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… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 to 25 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Motor Learning, Physical Activities, Video Modeling
- What is being tested?
- Video expert Modeling, Video self-modeling and Peer-to-peer learning video
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 176 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTunisia
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2026to 17 Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 to 25 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: 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).
Read the 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.
- Conditions
- Motor Learning, Physical Activities, Video Modeling
- Being tested
- Video expert Modeling, Video self-modeling, Peer-to-peer learning video, Control group
- Keywords
- Video Technology, Physical Education, Sport Science Students, Motor Skill Learning, Shot-Put, Video Modeling, Motor Learning
- Medical subject headings
- Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Video expert ModelingBehavioural
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).
Video self-modelingBehavioural
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).
Peer-to-peer learning videoBehavioural
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).
Control groupBehavioural
The same shot-put learning program was implemented without the use of video-based learning.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-to-peer learning video group during warm-up | Experimental | Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the warm-up in each learning session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning video |
| Video expert modeling group during warm-up | Experimental | Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video expert Modeling |
| Video self-modeling group during warm-up | Experimental | Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video self-modeling |
| Peer-to-peer learning video group during learning | Experimental | Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning video |
| Video expert modeling group during learning | Experimental | Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video expert Modeling |
| Video self-modeling group during learning | Experimental | Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video self-modeling |
| Peer-to-peer learning video group after learning | Experimental | Student pairs analyzed their own recorded videos after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning video |
| Video expert modeling group after learning | Experimental | Each student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video expert Modeling |
| Video self-modeling group after learning | Experimental | Each student viewed their own video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. Receives: Behavioral: Video self-modeling |
| Control group | Active comparator | Participants in the control group maintained their normal learning activities in physical education. Receives: Behavioral: Control group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Shot-put throwing distance (m)
The distance of the shot-put throw, measured in meters. The best performance across three trials at each assessment was used for analysis
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Shot-put technical execution score
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
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Shot-put release velocity (m/s)
Shot release velocity, expressed in m/s, was determined from video recordings using Kinovea motion analysis software
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Secondary outcomes (3)
Go/No-Go response time (ms)
Response time during Go trials was recorded in milliseconds using the Go/No-Go task administered through the CogniFit online cognitive assessment platform.
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Go/No-Go inhibitory control accuracy (%)
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.
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
d2 attention test performance
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.
Measured: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Sep 2026
- Study start1 Apr 2026
- Primary completion17 Jun 2026
- Study completion17 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Motor LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 176 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nejmeddine Ouerghi, High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef
- Investigators
- Nejmeddine Ouerghi, Principal investigator, Research Unit "Sport Sciences, Health and Movement"(UR22JS01) High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Kef, University of Jendouba, 7100 Kef, Tunisia.
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07849504
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NJ_MB_Video_Modeling
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 22 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 30 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Video Modeling Variants and Temporal Scheduling Effects on Shot-Put Acquisition
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07849504
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NJ_MB_Video_Modeling
- Conditions
- Motor Learning, Physical Activities, Video Modeling
- Keywords
- Video Technology, Physical Education, Sport Science Students, Motor Skill Learning, Shot-Put, Video Modeling, Motor Learning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 176 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of KefUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 17 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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).
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 design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 10
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Peer-to-peer learning video group during warm-up | Experimental | Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning videoStudent pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the warm-up in each learning session over 9 weeks. |
| Video expert modeling group during warm-up | Experimental | Behavioral: Video expert ModelingEach student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks. |
| Video self-modeling group during warm-up | Experimental | Behavioral: Video self-modelingEach student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the warm-up phase in each learning session over 9 weeks. |
| Peer-to-peer learning video group during learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning videoStudent pairs analyzed their own recorded videos during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Video expert modeling group during learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Video expert ModelingEach student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Video self-modeling group during learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Video self-modelingEach student viewed their own video for 5 minutes during the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Peer-to-peer learning video group after learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Peer-to-peer learning videoStudent pairs analyzed their own recorded videos after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Video expert modeling group after learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Video expert ModelingEach student viewed an expert-modeling video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Video self-modeling group after learning | Experimental | Behavioral: Video self-modelingEach student viewed their own video for 5 minutes after the learning phase in each session over 9 weeks. |
| Control group | Active comparator | Behavioral: Control groupParticipants in the control group maintained their normal learning activities in physical education. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 to 25 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Video expert ModelingStudents 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). | Behavioural | Video expert modeling group after learning, Video expert modeling group during learning, Video expert modeling group during warm-up |
| Video self-modelingStudent 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). | Behavioural | Video self-modeling group after learning, Video self-modeling group during learning, Video self-modeling group during warm-up |
| Peer-to-peer learning videoStudent 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). | Behavioural | Peer-to-peer learning video group after learning, Peer-to-peer learning video group during learning, Peer-to-peer learning video group during warm-up |
| Control groupThe same shot-put learning program was implemented without the use of video-based learning. | Behavioural | Control group |
Primary outcome
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
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
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
3 secondary outcomes
Go/No-Go response time (ms)
Time frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Go/No-Go inhibitory control accuracy (%)
Time frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
d2 attention test performance
Time frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Sep 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Motor Learning
Active, not recruiting
A Mobile App to Improve 24-Hour Movement Guideline Adherence in Preschoolers
Healthy, 24-Hour Movement Guidelines
Not yet recruiting
Single Session Support for Parents of Children With Neurodevelopmental Disabilities Struggling With Anxious Avoidance
Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Recruiting
Vowel Space Expansion Sensorimotor Adaptation
Speech
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A Study to Learn About the Safety of BIIB147 and Its Effects in Adults With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
A Study to Learn About the Safety of BIIB115 Injections and How BIIB115 is Processed in the Bodies of Healthy Adult Male Volunteers and of Pediatric Participants With Spinal Muscular Atrophy Who Previously Took Onasemnogene Abeparvovec
Healthy Volunteer, Muscular Atrophy, Spinal
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nejmeddine Ouerghi principal investigator
Research Unit "Sport Sciences, Health and Movement"(UR22JS01) High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Kef, University of Jendouba, 7100 Kef, Tunisia.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Video expert Modeling, Video self-modeling and Peer-to-peer learning video in people with Motor Learning and Physical Activities, run by High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef at 1 site in Tunisia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Tunisia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Shot-put throwing distance (m) (time frame: Week 1, Week 5, and Week 9). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Sep 2026.