The acute effect of expert video modelling on tennis serve performance in 7- to 9-year-old players

Eya Kachouri; Ghaith Ezeddine; Hiba Kachouri; Cain C. T. Clark; Bessem Mkaouer; Nafaa Souissi

doi:10.37190/abb/230881

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

The acute effect of expert video modelling on tennis serve performance in 7- to 9-year-old players

Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics

Volume 28 (2026): Issue 3 (September 2026)

By: Eya Kachouri , Ghaith Ezeddine, Hiba Kachouri, Cain C. T. Clark, Bessem Mkaouer and Nafaa Souissi

Open Access

|Oct 2026

Figures & Tables

The study participant recruitment flowchart.

Table 1

Interaction between conditions and points areas

Source	Correction	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared	ε
Point area	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.228	1187.745	274.756	0.001	0.945	0.614
Condition	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.414	52.050	85.612	0.001	0.843	0.707
Point area × Condition	Greenhouse-Geisser	2.514	23.094	7.077	0.001	0.307	0.629

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied due to violation of sphericity (ε = 0.614 for point area; ε = 0.707 for condition; ε = 0.629 for Point area × Condition). η ² _p = partial eta squared. n = 17 per condition.

Table 2

Point area pairwise comparison

Point Area		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
Point area 5	Point area 3	−0.078	0.150	0.608	0.063
Point area 5	Point area 1	−6.588	0.395	0.001	2.025
Point area 3	Point area 1	−6.51	0.366	0.001	2.156

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. n = 17 per condition. *p < 0.001 significant effect.

Table 3

Conditions pairwise comparison

Condition		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
CC	VMC1	−1.118	0.162	0.001	1.679
CC	VMC2	−1.667	0.131	0.001	3.087
VMC1	VMC2	−0.549	0.085	0.001	1.558

CC = control condition; VMC1 = video modelling condition 1 (single exposure); VMC2 = video modelling condition 2 (repeated exposure). Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. n = 17 per condition. *p < 0.05 significant effect.

Table 4

ANOVA results for successful serve, ball speed, and ball impact across conditions

	Correction	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared	ε
Succeful_Service	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.414	156.149	85.612	0.001	0.843	0.707
Ball_Speed	Sphericity assumed	2	1.938	1.652	0.208	0.094	1.000
Ball_Impact	Sphericity assumed	2	103.767	70.288	0.001	0.815	1.000

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied for successful serve (ε = 0.707). Sphericity was assumed for ball speed and ball impact (ε = 1.000). η ² _p = partial eta squared. n = 17 per condition.

Table 5

Pairwise comparisons for successful serve, ball speed, and ball impact across conditions

Measure	Condition		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
Succeful_Service	1	2	−3.353	0.485	0.001	1.678
	1	3	−5	0.393	0.001	3.086
	2	3	−1.647	0,256	0.001	1.558
Ball_Speed	1	2	0.671	0.404	0.116	0.403
	1	3	0.404	0.357	0.275	0.274
	2	3	−0.267	0.352	0.458	0.184
Ball_Impact	1	2	−3.244	0.481	0.001	1.636
	1	3	−4.85	0.443	0.001	2.656
	2	3	−1.606	0.306	0.001	1.273

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. CC = control condition; VMC1 = video modelling condition 1; VMC2 = video modelling condition 2. *p < 0.001 significant effect.

Table 6

ANOVA results for condition, test, and their interaction for point area 1

Source	Correction	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared	ε
Condition	Sphericity assumed	2	189.987	55.402	0.001	0.776	1.000
Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.362	224.276	33.049	0.001	0.674	0.454
Condition × Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	3.029	58.299	25.399	0.001	0.614	0.505

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied for Test (ε = 0.454) and Condition × Test (ε = 0.505). Sphericity was assumed for Condition (ε = 1.000). η ² _p = partial eta squared. n = 17 per condition.

Table 7

Pairwise comparisons between conditions for point area 1

Condition		Mean Diff.	Std. Error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
CC	VMC1	−2.099	0.372	0.001	1.370
CC	VMC2	−3.303	0.319	0.001	2.509
VMC1	VMC2	−1.204	0.250	0.001	1.168

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. CC = control condition; VMC1 = video modelling condition 1; VMC2 = video modelling condition 2. *p < 0.001 significant effect.

Table 8

Pairwise comparisons between tests for point area 1

Test		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
Point area 1	SS	−1.529	0.154	0.001	2.407
Point area 1	BS	1.65	0.499	0.004	0.801
Point area 1	BI	−1.076	0.253	0.001	1.033
SS	BS	3.179	0.471	0.001	1.637
SS	BI	0.454	0.181	0.023	0.608
BS	BI	−2.726	0.365	0.001	1.809

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. SS = Successful Serve; BS = Ball Speed; BI = Ball Impact. *p < 0.05 significant effect.

Table 9

ANOVA results for condition, test, and their interaction for point area 3

Source	Correction	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared	ε
Condition	Sphericity Assumed	2	106.964	53.134	0.001	0.769	1.000
Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.904	1095.228	211.774	0.001	0.930	0.635
Condition × Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	2.683	82.093	41.187	0.001	0.720	0.447

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied for Test (ε = 0.635) and Condition × Test (ε = 0.447). Sphericity was assumed for Condition (ε = 1.000). η ² _p = partial eta squared. n = 17 per condition.

Table 10

Pairwise comparisons between conditions for point area 3

Condition		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
CC	VMC1	−1.57	0.267	0.001	1.424
CC	VMC2	−2.479	0.271	0.001	2.220
VMC1	VMC2	−0.91	0.181	0.001	1.219

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. CC = control condition; VMC1 = video modelling condition 1; VMC2 = video modelling condition 2. *p < 0.001 significant effect.

Table 11

Pairwise comparisons between tests for point area 3

Test		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
Point area 3	SS	−8.039	0.284	0.001	3.430
Point area3	BS	−4.86	0.423	0.001	2.784
Point area3	BI	−7.586	0.352	0.001	2.611
SS	BS	3.179	0.471	0.001	1.637
SS	BI	0.454	0.181	0.023	0.608
BS	BI	−2.726	0.365	0.001	1.809

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. SS = Successful Serve; BS = Ball Speed; BI = Ball Impact. *p < 0.05 significant effect.

Table 12

ANOVA results for condition, test, and their interaction for point area 5

Source		df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared	ε
Condition	Sphericity assumed	2	113.366	65.551	0.001	0.804	1.000
Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	1.998	1064.442	206.675	0.001	0.928	0.666
Condition × Test	Greenhouse-Geisser	2.991	70.423	34.816	0.001	0.685	0.499

Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied for Test (ε = 0.666) and Condition × Test (ε = 0.499). Sphericity was assumed for Condition (ε = 1.000). η ² _p = partial eta squared. n = 17 per condition.

Table 13

Pairwise comparisons between conditions for point area 5

Condition		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
CC	VMC1	−1.614	0.254	0.001	1.542
CC	VMC2	−2.553	0.247	0.001	2.503
VMC1	VMC2	−0.939	0.164	0.001	1.388

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. CC = control condition; VMC1 = video modelling condition 1; VMC2 = video modelling condition 2. *p < 0.001 significant effect.

Table 14

Pairwise comparisons between tests for point area 5

Test		Mean Diff.	Std. error Diff.	Sig.^bonf	Effect size
Point area 5	SS	−8.118	0.325	0.001	3.033
Point area 5	BS	−4.938	0.415	0.001	2.889
Point area 5	BI	−7.664	0.376	0.001	2.469
SS	BS	3.179	0.471	0.001	1.637
SS	BI	0.454	0.181	0.023	0.608
BS	BI	−2.726	0.365	0.001	1.809

Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. SS = Successful Serve; BS = Ball Speed; BI = Ball Impact. *p < 0.05 significant effect.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37190/abb/230881 | Journal eISSN: 2450-6303 | Journal ISSN: 1509-409X

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 43 - 53

Submitted on: Jun 20, 2026

Accepted on: Aug 7, 2026

Published on: Oct 16, 2026

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

Motor learning,

Observational learning,

Related subjects:

Bioengineering and biomedical engineering,

Cellular and tissue engineering,

Biomechanics,

Medicine,

Biomedical engineering,

Materials sciences,

Biomaterials and natural materials

© 2026 Eya Kachouri, Ghaith Ezeddine, Hiba Kachouri, Cain C. T. Clark, Bessem Mkaouer, Nafaa Souissi, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 28 (2026): Issue 3 (September 2026)

The acute effect of expert video modelling on tennis serve performance in 7- to 9-year-old players

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Figure 2

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Paradigm

My account