Examination of Athletes' Preferences for Practice Drills in a Group Response Restriction Analysis

Crochet and team asked rugby players which practice drills they like. First they gave a quick survey. Then they ran a two-minute on-field test. Players could pick one of four drills, but the coach briefly blocked each choice.

The sample was neurotypical college-age athletes. No diagnoses. The goal was to see if the short field test gives the same answer as the survey.

Both tools pointed to the same thing. Players chose offensive and light-contact drills more. They avoided defensive and heavy-contact drills.

The two-minute response-restriction test matched the survey. Coaches now have a fast way to learn what players actually prefer.

Leung et al. (2011) show that behavior analysts have done very little sport work. Only 25 single-case sport studies existed before 2011. Crochet et al. (2025) adds a fresh one, extending the line.

Barker et al. (2020) warn that many sport SCEDs have short baselines and weak reliability. Crochet’s team used clear counts and double checks, meeting that call for better methods.

DePaolo et al. (2019) also worked with a college team and single-case tactics. They changed player talk; Crochet changed drill choice. Together they show ABA tools work for team-wide issues, not just individual skills.

You can swap the long survey for a two-minute drill test. Ask players to pick, block each option for 20 seconds, and count the approach backs. You will see which drills they truly want. Use that info to build practice schedules players buy into, cutting moans and boosting effort.