Difference between dominant hand and non-dominant hand when using a forehand shot with practice

Difference between dominant hand and non-dominant hand when using a forehand shot with practice

Introduction

The main goal of this report is to show the difference that can be exhibited between non-dominant hand and dominant hand when players are participating in any sport activity, specifically with a racket. Testing was mainly done by use of students within the university. The students used comprised of those with limited skills and those with a lot of experience in playing tennis ball. The experiment was done by making use of tennis racket and ball in order to test any successful shots that can be achieved while using different hands. It aimed on testing capability of both hands in shooting tennis ball. A hypothesis was used to test while evaluating which hand exhibits more capability and was more effective with forehand in regard to the set evaluation hypothesis. The stated hypothesis used in carrying out the experiment was that, the more dominant hand was to give effective results while using forehand shot when compared to non-dominant while in practice. Hopefully, when using this hypothesis to experiment, the most probable results was, the dominant hand gave better results while practicing. A study done by Armstrong (1999) showed that in a research which was done by Schimidt and Toews (1970) found there was a strong connection of the dominant hand. On average, it showed it was more effective by 10.3% when rated in conjunction with non-dominant hand.

My report hypothesis has proved to be in support of these research by stating that, it has been proved that, stronger hand is realistically more dominant by a certain given percentage margin. Further, in Armstrong (1999) report, it stated strength was more significant in dominant hand than non-dominant hand. Similarly, this has given a big boost by backing up my hypothesis in my study. This is what I experimented as it has been stated from previous report that, dominant hand is stronger by some facts. In yet another study (Incel et al 2002), my hypothesis has been backed and a strong base of my study has been laid out in regard to these past research. This research concluded that, dominant hand is stronger when compared non-dominant hand. This is due to the fact that, dominant hand is definitely stronger and effective than non-dominant hand in completing tasks of different types. Additionally, Incel et al (2002) shows how recent studies have been trying to prove effectiveness of dominant hand when compared to non-dominant hand. This is clear indication that, the test has been tested and continue to be tested by scholars to ascertain if it is a reality dominant hand is effective than non-dominant hand. From the study of dominant hand and non-dominant hand has shown it is mordantly better in relation to non-dominant hand (Jensen, 2001).

Method

Prior to the required test which is to involve the relevant participants, it was very vital for to carry out Par-Q in order to make sure those participating in the experiment are proved physically fit. This would help them to take part in the experiment without injuries occurring while underdoing the test (Marsden et al, 2013). This is very important since it helps in making sure nothing probable would disrupt the experiment to make the data collected invalid. The experiment would involve 115 students who are above 18 years in the process of completing the exercise. All participant would make use both of their dominant hand and non- dominant hand in striking the tennis ball with the forehand shot in regard to forehand tennis ball shot. All possible shots will be examined to determine how many times the tennis ball went through the hoop out of ten possible trios (Schubert & Maass, 2011). The experiment would be done after doing practice before the hand. All participants would be standing taking their positions exactly the same distant from the tennis hoop. Participants were about 2m away from the hoop. The experiment would involve use of racket which was of an average size of 29 inches or 73.66 cm (Oldham, 2017). Similarly, the experiment made use of sponge ball while doing the test from indoors, sport halls or the normal size of the tennis ball hoop. The main objective was to test if there exist more success with use of dominant hand when compared to non-dominant hand.

Fig 1: Results

After the study and from the analysis of the results, it come out clearly that, my hypothesis under study was in line with the study. The results of the study involved calculation of mean age, weight and height of the participants and the dominant hand. These measures were taken in order to put into consideration the average body weight, age and height of all those partaking in the experimentation. These observable characteristics can be found from figure 1. The results revealed out that, most of the participants had right hand dominant characteristic. Additionally, the participants age is 20.67 given there is a standard deviation of +- 3.80. From analysis and observation of the tabulated results in support of the study hypothesis, there was a test which was made to determine any statistical difference between either dominant or non-dominant hand in doing different tasks (Fuchs & Jirsa, 2008). When undertaking the study, it was observable that, a value of 0.0000000450639 was the observable error margin. This made study realistically acceptable since it was within standard deviation value of 0.5 between the two study variable of dominant and non-dominant with practice in the process of completing the forehand shot.

Fig 2: Results

The experiment discussion was still be supported by analysis of data in figure 2. The data presented shows that, the mean average observable with dominant hand was 6.56 shots out of possible 10 shots while non-dominant hand was 5.29. The calculated overall difference between the two study variables is 1.27 in study mean. This proves study hypothesis to be correct and the available 115 participants, the dominant hand had high chances of successful shots compared to non-dominant hand.

Discussion

Considering the experimental choice to use participants of about 20 years of age was meant to involve participant who are young and energetic. According to Kemp Korkman (2010), youngsters of about 20 years are active, competent and can learn very easily. This set of participants are still more resistance to injuries since their bodies are flexible and can adopt to the required situation easily. From the mean age and standard deviation presented in the study, young participant should be 16 years and above while the oldest should be 24 years of age. This is an indication that, study participants are very young and flexible, so they can give accurate and reliable results. Additionally, the height of the study participants was found to have a mean of about 174.31 but with a standard deviation of 10.37. This indicates average tall people were chosen to take part in the experiment. This was meant to accord them optimum height required to participate without a lot of straining. Optimum height was aimed to practice and participation easier for participants. Cheng (2000) stipulates that, the height of the body is a very key factor since it also determines body weight of participants. Height of an individual correlated directly to body mass index which in turn determines body weight of an individual. Important to note is the standard deviation on the dominant of the hands. The value 0.28 indicates how there is a big difference on the activeness of the hands. The value is an indication that, dominant hand is more effective in making tennis shots than non-dominant hand. Finally, the effectiveness of the hands as presented in figure2 shows dominant hand having higher rate of effectiveness than non-dominant hand, an indication of dominant hand making good shots than non-dominant hands. The relevance of the results obtained from the experiment conforms to past researchers results since they are highly correlated in their final conclusion. According to Schimidt and Toews (1970), there exist strong evidence that shows dominant hand has higher rate of effectiveness not only in tennis ball experimentation but in other chosen cases of study.  Further, a study conducted by Incel et al (2002) concluded that, recent studies are finding dominant hand being more effective than non-dominant hand. Therefore, with no doubt of confidence in my findings, the results presented from the findings are valid and reliable in drawing study decision on real life situations.

Conclusion

The basic idea of the report was to illustrate the existential difference between dominant and non-dominant hand when using a forehand shot in tennis ball with practice prior to the experiment. Past research and studies have come up with almost similar study hypothesis and drawn related results. This can be sued to indicate how the results obtained are highly correlated to other studies. The mean obtained do not deviate outside study experimentation required standards, an indication of well-conducted and calculated study results. Dominant hand effectiveness has been proved to be true and from already concluded studies, any scholars have concurred with my study findings. From the literature review conclusions, when dominant hand is relatively compared to non-dominant hand in performing different tasks, dominant hand has proved to be more active and producing better results which are more effective than non-dominant hand. The method of study used involved participants of mild age youngster who are very active, resistance to infection and injuries while undergoing training and experimentation. This was very important because it had to uphold validity of the data, accuracy and reliability of the study. The study hypothesis was realistically valid and lead the researcher in making valid assumptions that were very helpful during the study. The figures presented in the study are meant to proof the valid of the study variable and make it possible to compare my study results to other researchers’ findings and conclusion. This can be used to ascertain that, a good study is guided by clear and well-articulated hypothesis of the study.

References

ARMSTRONG, C (1999). “A COMPARISON OF DOMINANT AND NON-DOMINANT       HAND STRENGTHS”. The Journal of Hand Surgery: Journal of the British Society for    Surgery of the Hand 24.4 421-425.

Cheng, L. L. S. (2000). The first “glot international” state-of-the-article book: The latest in            linguistics. Berlin [u.a.: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fuchs, A., & Jirsa, V. K. (2008). Coordination: Neural, behavioral and social dynamics. Berlin:     Springer.

Incel N, Ceceli E, Durukan P, Erdem H & Yorgancioglu Z (2002) ‘Grip Strength: Effect of Hand             Dominance’ Vol 43 (5): p234-237

Jensen, E. (2001). Arts with the brain in mind. Alexandria (Virginia, USA: Association for           Supervision and Curriculum Development, ASCD.

Kemp, S. L., & Korkman, M. (2010). Essentials of NEPSY-II assessment. Hoboken, N.J: John     Wiley & Sons.

Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M., IFIP Technical Committee 13   on Human Computer Interaction., & IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction,         INTERACT. (2013). Human-computer interaction — INTERACT 2013: 14th IFIP TC 13             International Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 2-6, 2013 : proceedings.   Berlin: Springer.

Oldham,J.(2017). Retrieved 30 March 2017, from             https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12827188_A_Comparison_of_Dominant_and_  Non-Dominant_Hand_Strengths

Schmidt RT & Toews JV (1970). Grip strength as measured by the Jaymar dynamometer. Archives          of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 51: 321–327.

Schubert, T. W., & Maass, A. (2011). Spatial dimensions of social thought. Berlin: De Gruyter     Mouton.