Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for

Elite Athlete Support in Golf

Aimée Mears, Ieuan Phillips and Josh Sumner

Sports Technology Institute, Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering,

Loughborough University, Loughborough, U.K.

Keywords: Biomechanics, Effectiveness, Technology.

Abstract: Digital technologies have enabled vast and varied amounts of data to be captured on elite athletes. The data

is intended for use by athletes, coaches and support team e.g. physiotherapists, sports scientists for many

purposes including performance development or injury prevention. However, the usefulness of such digital

technologies and the information gathered is only beneficial if deemed effective by all those involved. The

purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of digital technology for elite athletes’ development

and support from athlete, coach and support team perspective in golf. Interviews were conducted with athletes,

coaches and support team for a sport where digital technologies were used to facilitate training. The results

of the study uncovered four categories that helped to understand how effectiveness was perceived which were

“The Influence on Psychological Well-being and Proprioception”, “Measurement Uncertainty”,

“Environment” and “Type, Ease and Frequency of Use”. Exploring these categories provided insight into the

best practices for digital technology integration into elite athlete support and ultimately can help shape future

developments of digital technologies.

1 INTRODUCTION

For an athlete to reach the pinnacle of their sport, such

as competing at the Olympic Games, there is often an

organizational and management system put in place

to support the athlete (Cruickshank et al., 2014). Part

of this system includes the provision for a

multidisciplinary support team made up of coaches,

sport scientists and medical personnel responsible for

supporting an athlete’s performance or prevent injury.

An important role for the athlete support team is

the analysis of elite athletes’ technique to help

improve and produce stable performances,

particularly in individual sports such as golf

(Buttifield et al., 2009). Support teams are required

to observe and provide feedback of the performer’s

movement patterns or physical conditioning and

subsequently amend coaching interventions to bring

about a change in performance (Sherman et al., 2001).

It is also acknowledged that precise qualitative or

quantitative feedback may be more beneficial for elite

athletes who require accurate information to detect

errors in an already proficient performance (Smith

and Loschner, 2002). Biomechanics analysis is well

suited to provide this detailed feedback and

understanding about technique and is reliant on

digital technology. Advances in digital technology

(defined as any type of electronic device or

application that relies on recording, measuring and

processing information in a binary form (i.e. as digits

0 and 1)) have made it possible to provide this

augmented feedback to athletes (Liebermann et al.,

2002), yet the perceived effectiveness of technology

is often not addressed.

Digital technologies have been integrated into

many aspects of daily life which has resulted in a

growth in social sciences research. An impetus for

the research is a desire to understand the

consequences the technology has on social,

emotional, mental, intellectual or physical

development. Effective implementation of digital

technologies offers the chance to augment knowledge

in a given situation and provide evidence to make

informed decisions, which in sport could be a

decision about an elite athlete’s technique. The

technology itself does not automatically improve or

augment human understanding and for it to be useful

it must firstly be integrated into meaningful situations

(Price et al., 2013). Secondly, the technology must be

viewed as effective by all users and often is the

measure of a new technological innovation success

190

Mears, A., Phillips, I. and Sumner, J.

Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for Elite Athlete Support in Golf.

DOI: 10.5220/0008347501900197

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2019), pages 190-197

ISBN: 978-989-758-383-4

(Ratten, 2019). For example, the effectiveness of

current or future sport technology innovations, must

be judged worthwhile by all involved from the athlete

to the support team.

Golf is an individual sport which was

reintroduced as an Olympic sport in Rio 2016. In

golf, athletes are required to perform a variety of

shots to successfully displace the golf ball accurately

and a given distance in as few shots as possible. Golf

performance is objectively measured by the number

of shots required to complete a round and is not reliant

on digital technology for officiating purposes. Digital

technology is now readily used in elite golf to provide

feedback on golfer (Evans et al., 2012) or club (Leach

et al., 2017) movement, yet there is limited

understanding of how effective these technologies are

for their intended purpose.

The overall purpose of this study was to

investigate the effectiveness of digital technologies

for elite athlete support from the athlete, coach and

support team perspective. Three research questions

were proposed:

1. What and how had digital technologies been

implemented as part of elite athletes’ support?

2. What were the perceived benefits and limitations

of digital technologies as part of elite athlete support

from the athlete, coach and support team perspective?

3. How was the effectiveness of digital technologies

in elite athlete support perceived and measured by

athletes, coaches and support team?

The results of the study could provide

recommendations for the implementation and

development of future technologies for supporting

elite athletes.

2 METHODS

This study is based on the phenomenological belief

that the effectiveness of digital technology for elite

athlete support is perceived differently by athletes,

coaches and support team member and is best

understood from capturing individual first-hand

accounts. Given this belief, an interview was deemed

the most suitable qualitative research method. An

interview allowed themes and detailed descriptions

about the effectiveness of digital technology to be

explored based on the experience of coaches, athletes

and support team member using their own

terminology. The study was approved by

Loughborough University ethics advisory committee

and prior to the interview participants were asked to

sign a consent form.

2.1 Participants

Qualitative data collection methods typically rely on

relatively small samples of participants who are

selected based on the purpose of the research (Patton,

2002). Patton (2002) described these purposefully

sampled participants as ‘information-rich cases’ from

which, the researcher can gather in-depth information

related specifically to the purpose of the research. A

critical case purposeful sampling strategy was

employed to ensure that participants met the

following criteria: elite athletes competing

internationally in their chosen sport and actively

engaged with digital technology for biomechanics

analysis. Three male golfers (Golfer One, Two and

Three), aged 34.3 ± 13.5 years, two experienced golf

coaches (Golf Coach One and Two) and one

physiotherapist/strength and conditioning coach took

part in the study.

2.2 Data Collection

Interviews were conducted at the start of the

competitive golf season by the lead author who has a

background in biomechanics research. The

interviews were scheduled, where possible, to

coincide with a biomechanics analysis measurement

session which utilized digital technology to quantify

athletes and equipment biomechanics. An overview

of each measurement session including the

technology used are presented to show examples of

how technology is used and help to set the context

when interpreting the outcomes of the interviews.

2.2.1 Digital Technology

The example biomechanics measurement session

involved the use of three-dimensional (3D) motion

analysis, force plates and launch monitor. The launch

monitor provides objective measures of club and ball

variables such as clubhead velocity and ball velocity

which are considered key determinants of shot

displacement. The combined use of 3D motion

analysis and forces plates allow golfer kinematics and

kinetics to be computed and reported. Retro-

reflective markers were attached to the golfer to

create a model of the golfer from which biomechanics

variables were computed and shared through a report

containing graphs and tables of data.

2.2.2 Interviews

The interview was divided into three sections: (i)

digital technology and biomechanics analysis (ii)

benefits and limitations of digital technology and (iii)

Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for Elite Athlete Support in Golf

191

effectiveness of digital technology. Each section

began with an open-ended question followed by

several detail -oriented or clarification questions

which were re-worded based on the interviewee’s

responses. The interviews with athletes and support

team member were conducted at the same location as

the biomechanics measurement session. The

interviews with coaches were carried out at their

coaching venue. The interviews lasted between 30 -

45 minutes and were recorded an Olympus DS-5000

dictaphone from which typed transcripts were

produced for data analysis. Field notes were also

taken during the interview.

2.3 Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim using the

qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo 12 (QSR

International). Subsequent analysis was also carried

out using NVivo.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis

(IPA) was carried out on the interview transcripts.

The goal of the IPA was to understand the concerns

of participants and to consider their claims based on

real-life experiences (Sparkes and Smith, 2014).

The IPA guidelines offered by Sparkes and Smith

(2014) were followed. A single analyst coded the

transcripts. Initially, transcripts were read several

times to become familiar with the accounts. Basic

annotations were made on the transcripts to highlight

and summarize areas of interest (i.e. coding). The

purpose of the initial coding was to capture

descriptive, linguistic or conceptual aspects of each

participants account. The initial coding was then

transformed into several themes which reflected the

participants perceptions. Connections between

themes were made and those which shared similar

concepts were clustered into categories. If company

names were used by participants when referring to

technology these were replaced with the type of

measurement technology.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Overview

Overall, mainly positive language was used by

athletes, coaches and support team members when

discussing technology with phrases such as,

“extremely important”, and “it’s big” used to answer

the question as to how important technology was to

the support provided to elite athletes. This view is not

surprising given successful elite athlete support

systems emphasise the provision of sport

science/coaching services and facilities that include

technology.

Athletes, coaches and the support team member

agreed that each member of the team would judge the

effectiveness of technology in the same way.

However, given each participant had different

experiences and understanding of the technology,

alternative perceptions were provided. As Golfer

Two notes:

… if we didn't all agree then we wouldn't use it, but

we definitely know that it's massive for helping us

improve. [My coach]… knows more about the

[launch monitor] or [my support team member]

might know more about the biomechanics but when it

all comes together we have all the information that

we need, everything from physical to on-the-course

stuff, so it's massive and it does definitely help.

3.2 Perceived Effectiveness of Digital

Technology

In-depth analysis of the participants responses

uncovered four categories that helped to understand

how the effectiveness of digital technology for elite

athlete support was perceived. The categories were:

“The Influence on Psychological Well-being and

Proprioception”, “Measurement Uncertainty”,

“Environment”, “Type, Ease and Frequency of Use”

(Figure 1).

3.2.1 The Influence on Psychological

Well-being and Proprioception

All participants recognized that the use of technology

had the potential to influence feelings or emotions.

The positive feelings which technology provided

included increasing feelings of confidence or

preparedness which led to wanting to continue to use

the technology in future instances particularly for

Golfer Two:

If you've used either the [launch monitor] or the

biomechanics and seen that there has been an

improvement from either last week or six months ago

or twelve months ago, then, obviously that's going to

give you a boost that you know what you're doing is

leading in the right direction. So you're going to want

to continue to work on those and use the same

information or the same technology for the further

years as well.

Negative feelings could also be experienced,

which included the use of terms such as “dependent”

or a sense the technology hindered confidence. The

feeling that technology sometimes hindered

confidence was experienced by Golf Coach One and

icSPORTS 2019 - 7th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

192

they believed that it could undermine their thoughts

or view of a situation when working with a golfer.

This feeling was exasperated when the coach had a

strong sense of uncertainty about the technology

which will be presented in further detail in the next

section. As Golf Coach One explains:

If I just had my camera and just responded to what

the golf ball is doing, I think I might come across as

more confident, rather than trying to interprate

something that might even be wrong.

In instances where the data had been used to

change specific kinematic variables, Golf Coach One

expressed concern about the external focus of golf

being forgotten (i.e. hit the ball towards a pre-defined

target). It appeared that although the data could

identify a flaw in technique and used simple coding

systems to try and directly change this for a player, it

was deemed detrimental and the feedback provided

by the technology should instead be communicated

through the coach with support from those who were

knowledgeable about the technology:

Personally, I’ve used [biomechanics analysis] in

my own golf and whether I interpreted the

information poorly or wasn't guided well enough

after but I really struggled with it because I was

trying to change a red light to a green…I kind of lost

the ball, stick, target side of it. I spoke with a new

pupil I've taken on the european tour and he'd spent

6 months working with someone who specialises in

biomechancis and he said he just lost the target

completely. So he now is thinking really internal and

I think most golfers learnt the game externally.

3.2.2 Measurement Uncertainty

Thoughts and concerns about the accuracy of the

technology also influenced their perceived

effectiveness of technology. Uncertainty about

measurement accuracy was a concern for all

participants. Golfer One expressed doubts over some

features of launch monitor technology which

ultimately influenced their use of the technology:

Figure 1: Four categories relating to the effectiveness of digital technology for elite athlete support from athlete, coach and

support team member perspective in golf.

Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for Elite Athlete Support in Golf

193

The more I learn about how…inaccurate it is, just to

an nth degree that I don't look at some of the numbers

on a [launch monitor], but what I do know is that the

ball data, and especially with distances is such a key

part of golf that I use it every single week when I go

away so at the start of the week I would use it for

gauging, we could be at altitude, different

temperatures, how it affects the ball.

Golf Coach Two described how they would

compare the results of two types of technology to

check the quality of data and it appears that the cost

of the equipment had influenced their decision as

which was the most accurate. The need for coaches

to carry out such testing does raise question as to

whether there needs to be a legislative body or

requirement for companies to be more transparent

about measurement uncertainty. Golf Coach Two

explained:

the fact it is expensive for a reason, because it's

the highest quality, it's got the most research behind

it, it's got the best people behind it, it's the best made

etc. So therefore it costs quite a lot. I've done some

testing of different technologies against each other.

So I did [launch monitor 1] against [launch monitor

2] for example and [launch monitor 1] came out

pretty good to be honest but the fact I'm measuring it

against [launch monitor 2] …is the benchmark kind

of says a lot really…some of the key data was very

similar, almost identical but the angle of attack data

was very different. But I will trust [launch monitor 2]

rather than [launch monitor 1] and more people use

it.

The support team member also commented on the

cost-effectiveness trade-of which it came to judge the

measurement uncertainty:

… I have to question the technology because I know

how much things are to be really good, to produce

really good data. For example the electromagnetics

stuff, I'd be thinking 'how good is it,' but then it's so

practical. [Launch monitor] you stand it up, you

switch it on, you set it up, 'that's amazing' and 'yeah

that data must be great' but then in the big picture, it's

thousands of pounds worth, it's £16,000…I'd be

thinking 'yeah, but force plates are way more than

that,' and so it's the perception, that value

3.2.3 Environment

Technology was seen to be disconnected from the

competitive environment, which for Golfer Three was

a concern for new golfers on the professional tours:

I think the only thing that's a downside really,

especially with this generation of young kids is that I

mean because when you do use technology, it's off the

perfect lie, a set lie, whereas you've got to go out

there…golf it's a forever changing environment, so,

with downhill lies and stuff like that. So the young

generation are too dependant on it I think, on this

stuff. They need to back away and just play golf.

Obviously combine the both, you know combine your

own talent with science but I think it's all about

getting the ball in the hole in the least possible shots

is the most important thing.

This recognized limitation of technology by the

golfer did not fully compromise the perceived

effectiveness of technology for golf coaches. For one

coach, it was not an expectation for the technology to

be able to replicate on-course conditions. The

decision of when and how to use the technology

appeared to be driven by the coach and if the coach

had a good appreciation for the limitation of

technology then necessary changes to the

implementation of technology were made. Golf

Coach Two summarised how they handle this

limitation of technology in golf:

You can stand there and try and make yourself too

perfect and then you know, golf is a game, it's a

problem solving game played in an ever changing

environment. So you have to practise that skill. You

know, the technology helps me with the technical stuff

which will help me to control the ball…Once you've

got ball control, which is what technology is helping

us do, then you need to get out in that ever changing

environment and make it work. So that's where you

withdraw the technology or slowly ween them off it.

You might take [launch monitor] out for a session,

then you might have a session without it and then you

are going to go on the golf course with no [launch

monitor] and you're going to put the artistic side of

the game together. But it's all made easier because

you've used technology to control the ball and get the

right physics in the ball, the right efficiency in you

body, the right sequence in your golf swing and so by

the time we do get out there it makes life a lot easier.

Golf Coach One and the Support Team member

supported the notion that future technology should

have the ability to emulate on-course or competition

surroundings:

Where as the [launch monitor], biomechanics and

the force plate, that isn't going to give me data on how

[the golfer] or anyone performed on the first tee or

the 67th hole, with 5 to go in a major. That's the kind

of information we need to find out.

So technologogy has to be portable, and that's

why everyone's just using mobile phones, because it's

easier isn't it, everyone's got one. So portable, how

quick it's reported, how easy is it to understand, but

ultimately it needs to be accurate as well.

icSPORTS 2019 - 7th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

194

3.2.4 Type, Ease and Frequency of Use

The frequency of use was another suggested metric as

to how effective digital technology was as part of elite

athlete support. Golf Coach One stated:

I think probably the best way to interperate it is

how often do you use it? If myself or a player go to

use it, then I think it's probably effective.

The frequency with which technology was used

was also related to the ease of set-up. A technology

that was easy to set-up was beneficial for all groups

of participants particularly when travelling to

tournaments around the world. Video technology

was often still seen as the most useful type of

technology due to its ease of set-up. Golf Coach One

commented:

The one thing that we'll use all the time is video

and a slo-mo video off an iPad. I try to be very

consistent with the height that I film at…While

biomechanics can tell me how much the lead wrist is

in flexion , I can see a huge amount of where it is with

pressure trace mats and things like that. I just think

that the most usable piece of technology is still video.

You'll probably get shot down by somebody who is a

biomechanist or somebody who likes pressure mats

but as a coach, you're travelling from place to place,

performer to performer, the one thing that's really

consistent is the camera and whether you want to

draw lines or just view it. View it in slo-mo, view it at

full speed, just to get the rhythm of the thing, I just

still think it's the best. I think I probably could do my

job just with that.

4 DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to investigate the

effectiveness of digital technologies for elite athlete

support from athlete, coach and support team member

perspectives. Based on an interpretative

phenomenological analysis of interviews,

predominantly positive views were expressed with

regards to the use of technology for analysing athlete

performance. Four main categories relating to the

perceived effectiveness of technology were found:

“The Influence on Psychological Well-being and

Proprioception”, “Measurement Uncertainty”,

“Environment”, “Type, Ease and Frequency of Use”.

The interpretations of first-hand accounts can be used

to provide suggestions of how to judge the

effectiveness of existing or future technologies and

help with decisions relating to implementation or

investment in digital technology.

All participants described instances where the use

of digital technology had influenced their

psychological well-being in mainly positive but

sometimes negative ways. Technology was an

effective tool for encouraging positive feelings such

as improving confidence, increasing a sense of

preparedness and alleviating negative moods (Figure

1). Healthcare technologies have been promoted as

ways to help treat major health problems such as

obesity (Pagoto et al., 2013; Solbrig et al., 2017) or

managing cancer treatments (Bender et al., 2013).

Online and mobile applications (apps) have been

developed to help manage weight loss programmes

for example, but apps that failed to acknowledge

psychological well-being of users were not rated

favourably (Bender et al., 2013). Apps which

provided motivational support rather than simple

quantification of calories for example were seen to be

more effective by users (Solbrig et al., 2017). There

is a similarity with athletes’ perceptions whereby

technology was deemed effectives if it influenced

their confidence. Therefore, future technologies

could further encourage the motivational nature of

digital technology through presentation of data as

opposed to just presenting quantitative results.

Mental health is an important concern for the

International Olympic Committee (IOC) with the

latest consensus statement published (Reardon et al.

2019). The consensus recognized several factors that

may influence an elite athlete’s mental health by

considering the wider social environment of the elite

athlete and how an environment can be created that

supports mental well-being and resilience. In the

consensus, coaches were encouraged to de-emphasize

achievements and outcomes and instead develop a

growth, effort and improvement mindset in athletes

(Reardon et al., 2019). This study has shown that the

use of technology can influence feelings, which for

the athletes in this study, were predominantly

positive, but it does still suggest that technology can

be a potential source of stress. Therefore, it may be

beneficial for strategies for the implementation of

digital technology to be decided within a support

team to avoid causing unnecessary stress. For

example, a strategy may include gradual introduction

of technology for athletes starting within an elite

athlete support programme. Furthermore, if not

already provided, coach education courses could

incorporate information about the social sciences

view of the role and use of technology in elite sport

as suggested by Taylor et al., (2017).

Concerns were raised when the technology

provided individualized feedback about specific

kinematic variables without considering the wider

Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for Elite Athlete Support in Golf

195

context of the feedback. Recommendations for

measurement of elite athletes has emphasized the

need for individualized measurement as it may

provide better understanding and evidence-based

support for athlete performance (Sands et al., 2019).

Golfers, for example, show inter-individual

differences in their movement patterns even for

similar clubhead–ball impact parameters (Smith et

al., 2017). The recommendation for future studies is

that data analysis methods must provide

interpretation and understanding of this

individualized, multidimensional movement (Lamb

and Pataky, 2018). Analysis methods that can provide

this type of interpretation are of interest to include in

analysis systems aimed at providing quantitative

feedback to coaches about the athlete’s technique

which help inform personalized coaching

interventions for performance enhancement or injury

prevention.

Coaches and support team members who felt

undermined by technology remarked about the

accuracy of the technology. Measurement errors are

impossible to avoid and therefore it is wrong to

assume that a measurement technology gives the

exact value of a variable of interest (Morris and

Langari, 2012). Errors can be reduced through good

data collection methods, appropriate analysis and

processing yet there will always be some level of

uncertainty. The coach-athlete relationship is very

important and for elite coaches having a good rapport

with athletes was perceived as the most important

need for elite coaching practice (Williams and

Kendall, 2007). If the coach feels undermined by the

technology, it may start to affect the rapport with the

athlete. It is therefore important that coaches can

provide sound knowledge of the measurement

uncertainty of the technology being used (Sands et al.,

2019). Some of this responsibility may also fall with

technology manufacturers by educating users about

the technology’s limitations, the measurement

uncertainty particularly in applied settings and openly

sharing validation procedures. One example where

measurement uncertainty has caused confusion is

Hawk-eye technologies used for officiating tennis

tournaments (Collins and Evans, 2008). Collins and

Evans (2008) argued that Hawk-eye’s presentation of

line calls in tennis were overestimating the ability of

the technology because measurement uncertainty was

not clearly shown to television audiences or athletes

during the competition. Hence, more could be done

by technology manufacturers to encourage a sense of

trustworthiness in the data amongst users. Unless this

occurs, independent studies comparing and reviewing

commercially available technologies will continue to

be conducted and published to help users appreciate

their inherent strengths and limitations (Evans et al.

2012; Leach et al., 2017).

The cost of technology and popularity of a

technology amongst peers appeared to influence

judgments about effectiveness. Some of the

technologies available on the market have a high cost

and therefore it is anticipated there would need to be

a cost-effectiveness trade-off. A technology with a

higher cost was presumed to be more accurate and

have the most research and development which it is

unclear whether this can be proven unless companies

or systems are willing to share details and the research

and development. This can cause some ethical

questions relating to availability of funds to purchase

such technology, for example for elite athletes in

developing countries. Once more, companies could

do more to justify the costs of the technology. Coach

education courses could also provide unbiased

reviews and insights into different technologies to

help coaches or support teams make better informed

decisions about the most appropriate technology.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In summary, mainly positive language was used by

athletes, coaches and support team when discussing

the effectiveness of digital technologies. Athletes,

coaches and support team members were in strong

agreement about the effectiveness of technology.

Digital technology did have the potential to influence

psychological well-being and proprioception but with

effective coaching strategies to implement

technologies these feelings could be managed.

Measurement uncertainty is an aspect of technology

that influences the feelings of each member of the

support team. Technology innovators and companies

providing more transparent information about the

measurement technology could help improve feelings

of trustworthiness amongst users who often pay large

amounts for the technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the Advanced Olympic Studies

Programme for providing funding for the study.

icSPORTS 2019 - 7th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

196

REFERENCES

Bender, J.L., Yue, R.Y.K., To, M.J., Deacken, L. and Jadad,

A.R. 2013. A lot of action, but not in the right direction:

Systematic review and content analysis of smartphone

applications for the prevention, detection, and

management of cancer. Journal of Medical Internet

Research 15(12).

Buttifield, A., Ball, K. and MacMahon, C. 2009. The use of

motor learning in Biomechanics: A call for more

collaboration. International Journal of Sport

Psychology 40, pp. 603–615.

Collins, H. and Evans, R. 2008. You cannot be serious!

Public understanding of technology with special

reference to ‘hawk-Eye’. Public Understanding of

Science 17(3), pp. 283–308.

Cruickshank, A., Collins, D. and Minten, S. 2014. Driving

and Sustaining Culture Change in Olympic Sport

Performance Teams: A First Exploration and Grounded

Theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

36(1), pp. 107–120.

Evans, K., Horan, S. a., Neal, R.J., Barrett, R.S. and Mills,

P.M. 2012. Repeatability of three-dimensional thorax

and pelvis kinematics in the golf swing measured using

a field-based motion capture system. Sports

Biomechanics, pp. 1–11.

Lamb, P.F. and Pataky, T.C. 2018. The role of pelvis-thorax

coupling in controlling within-golf club swing speed.

Journal of Sports Sciences 36(19), pp. 2164–2171.

Leach, R.J., Forrester, S.E., Mears, A.C. and Roberts, J.R.

2017. How valid and accurate are measurements of golf

impact parameters obtained using commercially

available radar and stereoscopic optical launch

monitors? Measurement: Journal of the International

Measurement Confederation 112(January), pp. 125–

136.

Liebermann, D.G., Katz, L., Hughes, M.D., Bartlett, R.M.,

McClements, J. and Franks, I.M. 2002. Advances in the

application of information technology to sport

performance. Journal of Sports Sciences 20(10), pp.

755–769.

Morris, A.S. and Langari, R. 2012. Measurement and

instrumentation : theory and application. Academic

Press.

Pagoto, S., Schneider, K., Jojic, M., Debiasse, M. and

Mann, D. 2013. Evidence-based strategies in weight-

loss mobile apps. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine 45(5), pp. 576–582.

Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research and evaluation

methods. 3

ed. London: Sage.

Price, S., Jewitt, C. and Brown, B. 2013. The SAGE

handbook of digital technology research.

Ratten, V. 2019. Introduction: Sport Technology and

Innovation. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Reardon, C.L., Hainline, B., Aron, C.M., Baron, D., Baum,

A.L., Bindra, A., Budgett, R., Campriani, N.,

Castaldelli-Maia, J.M., Currie, A., Derevensky, J.L.,

Glick, I.D., Gorczynski, P., Gouttebarge, V., Grandner,

M.A., Han, D.H., McDuff, D., Mountjoy, M., Polat, A.,

Purcell, R., Putukian, M., Rice, S., Sills, A., Stull, T.,

Swartz, L., Zhu, L.J. and Engebretsen, L. 2019. Mental

health in elite athletes: International Olympic

Committee consensus statement 2019. British Journal

of Sports Medicine 53(11), pp. 667–699.

Sands, W., Cardinale, M., McNeal, J., Murray, S., Sole, C.,

Reed, J., Apostolopoulos, N. and Stone, M. 2019.

Recommendations for Measurement and Management

of an Elite Athlete. Sports 7(5), p. 105.

Sherman, C.A., Sparrow, W.A., Jolley, D. and Eldering, J.

2001. Coaches’ perceptions of golf swing kinematics.

International Journal of Sport Psychology 31, pp. 257–

270.

Smith, A.C., Roberts, J.R., Kong, P.W. and Forrester, S.E.

2017. Comparison of centre of gravity and centre of

pressure patterns in the golf swing. European Journal

of Sport Science 17(2), pp. 168–178.

Smith, R.M. and Loschner, C. 2002. Biomechanics

feedback for rowing. Journal of Sports Sciences 20(10),

pp. 783–91.

Solbrig, L., Jones, R., Kavanagh, D., May, J., Parkin, T. and

Andrade, J. 2017. People trying to lose weight dislike

calorie counting apps and want motivational support to

help them achieve their goals. Internet Interventions 7,

pp. 23–31.

Sparkes, A.C. and Smith, B. 2014. Qualitative research

methods in sport, exercise and health : from process to

product.

Taylor, W.G., Potrac, P., Nelson, L.J., Jones, L. and Groom,

R. 2017. An elite hockey player’s experiences of video-

based coaching: A poststructuralist reading.

International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(1),

pp. 112–125.

Williams, S.J. and Kendall, L. 2007. Perceptions of elite

coaches and sports scientists of the research needs for

elite coaching practice. Journal of Sports Sciences

25(14), pp. 1577–1586.

Investigating the Perceived Effectiveness of Digital Technology for Elite Athlete Support in Golf

197