The impact of augmented feedback (and technology) on learning and teaching cricket skill: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Kevin Tissera; Dominic Orth; Minh Huynh; Amanda C. Benson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279121

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 2, 2022
14 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Chiara Milanese, Editor PONE-D-22-15875The impact of augmented feedback (and technology) on learning and teaching cricket skill: A systematic review with meta-analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kevin Tissera, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within 60 days. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://pone.editorialmanager.com/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Chiara Milanese Academic Editor Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The lead author was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. No other funding was received.” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 5. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors Conducting a systematic review on the impact of extended feedback (and technology) on learning and teaching cricket is a good idea in my opinion. The authors did a very interesting meta-analysis. Methodologically, the study is fine. The review is conducted in accordance with all the canons applicable to this type of research. In the conclusion it is clear what the methodological procedure is and what the results are. Suggestions: - I find PubMed missing from the databases listed. Of course, they are all selected correctly, and perhaps this would be duplicated, but it is missing for me. - The section on conclusions is interestingly described. The authors pointed out the fact that the analysis performed was limited. I would suggest creating a separate section on conclusions and a separate section on limitations of the analysis. I suggest accepting the paper for publication with minor corrections. Reviewer #2: This study conducted a systematic review and meta analysis on the effectiveness of feedback-involved interventions on skill-based performance outcomes in cricket. The authors indicate that there is a lack of studies conducted directly on feedback and cricket skills, and instead examine research interventions which utilise augmented feedback in their methodological design. The discussion then uses an ecological dynamics lens to discuss the studies methodology and results. The following comments are made in the spirit of helping improve the quality of the manuscript. General comments There are a number of limitations which should be included in the manuscript, likely stemming from the lack of feedback specific studies in this area, and include the inability to review the frequency, timing and provision of feedback approaches on cricket skill. The review itself is rather an overview of feedback-involved interventions on skill-based performance outcomes in cricket-specific “research”. It was disappointing to see that all studies in this space have only involved male cricketers. It is suggested that this point be highlighted, and include a call for future research in this space to include both male and female cricketers. Specific Comments Line 33-36: Suggest rephrase (For example, smart device applications that enable quick analysis of movement patterns, such as the bat lift in cricket [3], providing augmented information that can be delivered as feedback (either directly to a player or by a coach), influencing how practice can translate into improved performance outcomes during competition) Line 39: Please include: It “can” be delivered… after an action, (that is, it can also be provided during an action; also referenced in line 42 and again line 110 Could the authors explain why the timing of feedback (concurrent or terminal) was not delimited in table 1, unlike how the feedback type was included? Could the lack of significance within the results be due to the fact that few included studies were designed to examine the effect of feedback on cricket performance? Line 317 – The authors state “In considering why there was a lack of significance, another possibility may be that the feedback provided was not sufficiently guiding in drawing attention to key information sources.” Could this not also be due to only a few papers specifically examining the influence of feedback on performance? Line 475 “Additionally, of the included studies, none explicitly explored the role of isolated augmented feedback.” Strongly suggested to include in limitations that the timing, frequency and method of providing feedback was not assessed in this study which may also have impacted homogeneity of the studies and subsequent findings. Line 489: “the role of augmented feedback within the sport of cricket.” This review is just focused on research conducted within the sport of cricket It is recommended the manuscript be reviewed generally to improve the quality of some sentence structures. (e.g., line 464: Given the continual advances to technology, including within sport settings, exciting opportunities exist for the development and use of technology which can be embedded within representative practice environments and, that supports coaches to present augmented feedback in-situ which helps guide athlete exploration processes) ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279121.r001
Revision 1
9 Oct 2022 Author Response Editor Comments 1 Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming The authors have checked the document and submission to ensure it meets the submission guidelines 2 We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section Thank you for the comment. No grant was provided for this submission – the funding information referred to relates to a PhD stipend scholarship funded by the Australian Government that we are acknowledging. 3 Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf The suggested comment will be included during the submission progress and cover letter to highlight that the funders played no role in the manuscript, given the nature of the funding (i.e., PhD stipend from the Australian Government) Comment to be added: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 4 In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter All data used for the meta-analysis is provided in the manuscript. No additional data is available. 5 We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist” Thank you for the comment. A completed PRIMSA checklist has been included in the submission (Supplementary Table 1). The file name will be renamed as suggested Reviewer 1 1 I find PubMed missing from the databases listed. Of course, they are all selected correctly, and perhaps this would be duplicated, but it is missing for me. Thank you for the comment. PubMed was not selected as the authors had access to MEDLINE, which encapsulates the largest component of PubMed resources. Therefore, it is anticipated that articles that would have been located through PubMed would have been captured through the MEDLINE database search, in addition to other databases explored. We agree that it would be a duplication. 2 The section on conclusions is interestingly described. The authors pointed out the fact that the analysis performed was limited. I would suggest creating a separate section on conclusions and a separate section on limitations of the analysis. The review explores the limitations of the analysis in more detail (Lines 472-476), whilst briefly referring to it in the conclusion section (Lines 498-500) 3 I suggest accepting the paper for publication with minor corrections Thank you for the positive comments on our manuscript. Reviewer 2 1 There are a number of limitations which should be included in the manuscript, likely stemming from the lack of feedback specific studies in this area, and include the inability to review the frequency, timing and provision of feedback approaches on cricket skill. The review itself is rather an overview of feedback-involved interventions on skill-based performance outcomes in cricket-specific “research”. Thank you for the comment. The authors agree and have added to the manuscript to highlight these points relating to the nature of the review (feedback involved interventions) and limitations (feedback attributes) Nature of review – Lines 268-270 “Rather, the review focuses on feedback-involved interventions, and their impact on skill-based performance outcomes within cricket-specific research.” – Lines 477-479 “Rather, feedback-involved interventions and subsequent impact on skill-based performance outcomes within cricket-specific research was explored.” Limitations of feedback attributes – Lines 479-481 “Such limitations in exploring key attributes of feedback (such as the timing, frequency and type) may have further impacted homogeneity of the studies and subsequent findings.” 2 It was disappointing to see that all studies in this space have only involved male cricketers. It is suggested that this point be highlighted, and include a call for future research in this space to include both male and female cricketers. This point has been added as a recommendation to guide future research Future directions recommendation – Lines 487-489 “Further, the review highlighted the limited cricket cohort explored; identifying that future research should focus on both male and female cricketers to best understand the value of feedback practices.” Specific Comments 3 Line 33-36: Suggest rephrase (For example, smart device applications that enable quick analysis of movement patterns, such as the bat lift in cricket [3], providing augmented information that can be delivered as feedback (either directly to a player or by a coach), influencing how practice can translate into improved performance outcomes during competition) Thank you for the comment. The sentence has been amended to have better flow Rephrase – Lines 33-37 “For example, smart device applications that enable quick analysis of movement patterns, such as the bat lift in cricket [3], provide augmented information that can be delivered as feedback (either directly to a player or by a coach). This extrinsic information can subsequently influence how practice can translate into improved performance outcomes during competition [4].” 4 Line 39: Please include: It “can” be delivered… after an action, (that is, it can also be provided during an action; also referenced in line 42 and again line 110 The sentence has been clarified Clarification – Lines 40-41 “It can be delivered to a learner during or after an action is completed, putatively, to improve performance during later actions [4].” 5 Could the authors explain why the timing of feedback (concurrent or terminal) was not delimited in table 1, unlike how the feedback type was included? The timing of feedback is somewhat explored under the heading Feedback provided (i.e., it alludes to following a trial or video replay). The explicit nature of when feedback was provided was not explored given the limited scope of the studies included in the review (i.e., not standalone feedback studies which did not explore the timing as a key attribute of the feedback delivered). 6 Could the lack of significance within the results be due to the fact that few included studies were designed to examine the effect of feedback on cricket performance? The authors agree that the potential lack of significance may be due to the limited nature of how feedback was implemented and explored in the included research studies and would be something to investigate in further research. This limitation is included in the discussion section (Lines 318-320 and Lines 342-343) 7 Line 317 – The authors state “In considering why there was a lack of significance, another possibility may be that the feedback provided was not sufficiently guiding in drawing attention to key information sources.” Could this not also be due to only a few papers specifically examining the influence of feedback on performance? The author’s agree this could be the case. Please refer to our response to reviewer 2, point 6 above 8 Line 475 “Additionally, of the included studies, none explicitly explored the role of isolated augmented feedback.” Strongly suggested to include in limitations that the timing, frequency and method of providing feedback was not assessed in this study which may also have impacted homogeneity of the studies and subsequent findings. Thank you for the suggestion. The suggested comment has been included to identify these limitations within the discussion. Comment on limitation – Lines 479-481 “Such limitations in exploring key attributes of feedback (such as the timing, frequency and type) may have further impacted homogeneity of the studies and subsequent findings.” 9 Line 489: “the role of augmented feedback within the sport of cricket.” This review is just focused on research conducted within the sport of cricket The sentence has been amended to reflect this point. Clarification – Lines 494-495 “To the authors knowledge, this is the first systematic review or meta-analysis that has explored the role of augmented feedback within research for the sport of cricket.” 10 It is recommended the manuscript be reviewed generally to improve the quality of some sentence structures. (e.g., line 464: Given the continual advances to technology, including within sport settings, exciting opportunities exist for the development and use of technology which can be embedded within representative practice environments and, that supports coaches to present augmented feedback in-situ which helps guide athlete exploration processes) Thank you for the comment – the manuscript has been reviewed to assess sentence flow as advised. The highlighted sentence has also been refined as suggested. Rephrase – Lines 465-469 “Given the continual advances to technology, including within sport settings, exciting opportunities exist for the development and use of technology which can be embedded within representative practice environments. Such technologies can support coaches to present augmented feedback in-situ; an important consideration which may help guide athlete exploration processes.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279121.r002
1 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Chiara Milanese, Editor The impact of augmented feedback (and technology) on learning and teaching cricket skill: A systematic review with meta-analysis PONE-D-22-15875R1 Dear Dr. Kenin, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Chiara Milanese Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: It is an interesting and well written paper. The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in a previous round of review. In my opinion, I feel that this manuscript is suitable for publication in PLOSONE in its current form. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279121.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Chiara Milanese, Editor PONE-D-22-15875R1 The impact of augmented feedback (and technology) on learning and teaching cricket skill: A systematic review with meta-analysis Dear Dr. Tissera: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Chiara Milanese Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279121.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .