Lauri Laakso's research while affiliated with University of Jyväskylä and other places

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two forms of instruction, “traditional” and “traditional” plus strategy instruction (strategy‐oriented), on students’ knowledge, game understanding, skill and game performance. College students (n = 30) in a teacher‐training programme were divided into two treatment groups: strategy‐oriented (n= 11) and traditional (n = 10), and to a control group (n = 9). Both treatment groups received 20 lessons of “traditional” badminton instruction and played singles badminton for 8 lessons. In addition, the strategy‐oriented group received video‐based strategy instruction for 8 lessons. Pre‐ and posttests were administered for badminton knowledge, game understanding, skill and game performance. The strategy‐oriented group was able to improve its badminton knowledge, game understanding and serving skill significantly whereas the traditional group improved its badminton serving skill.

The purpose of this study is to report on the development and validation of a game-understanding test procedure in badminton. A basic video-based test was constructed, and primary school children (ages 9-10 and 11-12 years, N = 120) served as participants. An advanced test was designed to detect differences between national level junior badminton players (11-14 years, n = 19) and primary and secondary school children (11-14 years, n = 45). The video-based tests consisted of 15 to 19 different sequences that were simulations of actual offensive and defensive game situations. In every sequence, players were to solve tactical problems by selecting appropriate solutions and arguments for their decisions. Validity and reliability of the tests were examined through these groups, and the findings suggest that the test procedure developed provides a valid and reliable method for assessing game understanding in badminton.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine differences in skill, game performance and game understanding in expert (n=12) and novice (n=14) youth badminton players (13‐14 years). Each subject participated in skill tests (serve, clear and drop) and a game understanding test which consisted of 15 different video simulations of actual offensive and defensive game situations. In every sequence, players were to solve tactical problems by selecting appropriate solutions and arguments for their decisions. In addition they played 2 x 10‐min singles badminton. AH matches were video recorded and post match analysed. Results clearly showed that skill, game play and cognitive components all differentiated experts from novices. Experts exhibited significantly more sport skill, played more effective shots and understood the game situations better when compared to novices. Based on the findings it could be suggested that all these qualities must be taken into account when teaching/coaching games in order to increase competence, interest and enjoyment in games playing.

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the badminton notational analysis system. Two junior players (15 years) played two full games of singles badminton. The match was video recorded and analysed afterwards by three trained observers who all coded the whole match twice using Sage™ Game Manager for Badminton software. The highest intra-observer agreement was found in the following shots: serve, lob and smash return (100%) and the lowest in the drop shot (84.5%). The highest inter-observer agreement was found in the lob and the smash (100%) and the lowest in the drop shot (87%). The intra- and inter-observer correlation coefficients were significant in all fourteen variables, with higher correlations in quantitative and lower in qualitative variables. The highest intra- and inter-observer correlation coefficient was found in evaluating the outcome of the shot (r= 1.000, r= 1.000) and the lowest in evaluating the quality of the decision made in the situation (r=.321, r=.134). The overall results indicated that the analysis system used was reliable and valid for evaluating playing time, player's position, and the type, quantity and length of the shots, but it was less reliable when the execution and decision of the shot was concerned.