VolleyballNCT07877857
THE EFFECT OF DIRECTED INVENTION METHOD STUDIES ON BASIC SKILLS AND REACTION TIME IN VOLLEYBALL
A study testing Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training and Traditional Volleyball Training in people with Volleyball and Reaction Time, run by Hüsniye ÇELİK at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the directed invention method on basic volleyball skills and reaction time. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 university students with no previous volleyball training experience, enrolled at Bayburt University during the fall semester of the 2024-2025… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 25 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Volleyball, Reaction Time, Motor Skills
- What is being tested?
- Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training and Traditional Volleyball Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 25 Oct 2024to 30 May 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 25 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Participants aged 18-25 years.
- Participants who have not previously received formal volleyball training.
- Participants who are able to participate in volleyball training.
- Participants who voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
Who cannot join
- Participants with a current injury or health condition that prevents participation in volleyball training.
- Participants who do not complete the pre-test or post-test assessments.
- Participants who do not complete the training program.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the directed invention method on basic volleyball skills and reaction time.
Materials and Methods: A total of 40 university students with no previous volleyball training experience, enrolled at Bayburt University during the fall semester of the 2024-2025 academic year, participated in the study. Participants were divided into an experimental group (n = 20), which received the directed invention method combined with traditional volleyball training, and a control group (n = 20), which received traditional volleyball training alone. Each group consisted of 10 male and 10 female students. Both groups participated in an 8-week training program. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design was used. Basic volleyball skills were assessed using a rating scale and direct observation, while reaction time was measured using the BlazePod system and wireless light disks. Descriptive statistics and normality tests were performed. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for between-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for within-group comparisons of non-normally distributed data. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0.
- Conditions
- Volleyball, Reaction Time, Motor Skills, Teaching Methods
- Being tested
- Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training, Traditional Volleyball Training
- Keywords
- Volleyball, Directed Invention Style, Basic Volleyball Skills, Reaction Time, BlazePod
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball TrainingBehavioural
The directed invention method was used as an instructional approach in volleyball training. Participants were guided to explore and discover solutions to volleyball-related movement and skill tasks through structured questions, problem-solving activities, and guided practice. The method was combined with the traditional volleyball training program.
Traditional Volleyball TrainingBehavioural
Participants in the control group followed the traditional volleyball training program. The training consisted of conventional volleyball instruction and practice activities aimed at developing fundamental volleyball skills. No directed invention method was included in the training program
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Volleyball Training | Active comparator | Participants in the control group completed an 8-week traditional volleyball training program. The program consisted of conventional volleyball instruction and practical activities designed to develop basic volleyball skills. The directed invention method was not included in this group. Receives: Behavioral: Traditional Volleyball Training |
| Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training | Experimental | Participants in the experimental group completed an 8-week volleyball training program that combined traditional volleyball instruction with the directed invention method. This teaching approach involved structured questions, problem-solving activities, and guided practice to encourage participants to discover solutions to movement-related tasks and develop basic volleyball skills. Receives: Behavioral: Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Basic Volleyball Skills Performance
Basic volleyball skills (finger pass, forearm pass, serve, block, and spike) were assessed before and after the 8-week training program using an observation-based rating procedure developed by three certified volleyball coaching experts. Finger and forearm pass accuracy was evaluated in designated court areas (1, 6, 5 and 2, 3, 4). Serve accuracy was assessed over three attempts toward designated target areas. Block and spike techniques were evaluated in areas 2, 3, and 4 near the net. Each successful attempt meeting the designated target or performance criterion received 5 points, while unsuccessful attempts received 0 points. The same procedure was used at baseline and immediately after the training program.
Measured: Baseline (February 25, 2025) and immediately after completion of the 8-week training program (April 22, 2025).
Secondary outcomes (1)
Reaction Time
Participants' reaction time was assessed before and after the 8-week training program using the BlazePod system with wireless light pods. Participants responded to visual light stimuli as quickly as possible. Reaction-time performance was recorded during the pre-test and post-test assessments to evaluate changes following the training program.
Measured: Baseline (February 25, 2025) and immediately after completion of the 8-week training program (April 22, 2025).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Oct 2026
- Study start25 Oct 2024
- Primary completion30 May 2025
- Study completion30 May 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for VolleyballStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hüsniye ÇELİK
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Bayburt University
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Hüsniye ÇELİK, Bayburt University
- Investigators
- Hüsniye ÇELİK, PhD, Principal investigator, Bayburt University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07877857
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- HCELIK
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 6 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 16 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: The datasets are available from the corresponding authors (hbulbul@bayburt.edu.tr) on request.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- THE EFFECT OF DIRECTED INVENTION METHOD STUDIES ON BASIC SKILLS AND REACTION TIME IN VOLLEYBALL
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07877857
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- HCELIK
- Conditions
- Volleyball, Reaction Time, Motor Skills, Teaching Methods
- Keywords
- Volleyball, Directed Invention Style, Basic Volleyball Skills, Reaction Time, BlazePod
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Hüsniye ÇELİKUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Bayburt University
- Study start
- 25 Oct 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 May 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 May 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the directed invention method on basic volleyball skills and reaction time.
Materials and Methods: A total of 40 university students with no previous volleyball training experience, enrolled at Bayburt University during the fall semester of the 2024-2025 academic year, participated in the study. Participants were divided into an experimental group (n = 20), which received the directed invention method combined with traditional volleyball training, and a control group (n = 20), which received traditional volleyball training alone. Each group consisted of 10 male and 10 female students. Both groups participated in an 8-week training program. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control-group design was used. Basic volleyball skills were assessed using a rating scale and direct observation, while reaction time was measured using the BlazePod system and wireless light disks. Descriptive statistics and normality tests were performed. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for between-group comparisons, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for within-group comparisons of non-normally distributed data. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 26.0.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Volleyball Training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Traditional Volleyball TrainingParticipants in the control group completed an 8-week traditional volleyball training program. The program consisted of conventional volleyball instruction and practical activities designed to develop basic volleyball skills. The directed invention method was not included in this group. |
| Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training | Experimental | Behavioral: Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball TrainingParticipants in the experimental group completed an 8-week volleyball training program that combined traditional volleyball instruction with the directed invention method. This teaching approach involved structured questions, problem-solving activities, and guided practice to encourage participants to discover solutions to movement-related tasks and develop basic volleyball skills. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 25 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Participants aged 18-25 years.
- Participants who have not previously received formal volleyball training.
- Participants who are able to participate in volleyball training.
- Participants who voluntarily agree to participate in the study.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Participants with a current injury or health condition that prevents participation in volleyball training.
- Participants who do not complete the pre-test or post-test assessments.
- Participants who do not complete the training program.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball TrainingThe directed invention method was used as an instructional approach in volleyball training. Participants were guided to explore and discover solutions to volleyball-related movement and skill tasks through structured questions, problem-solving activities, and guided practice. The method was combined with the traditional volleyball training program. | Behavioural | Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training |
| Traditional Volleyball TrainingParticipants in the control group followed the traditional volleyball training program. The training consisted of conventional volleyball instruction and practice activities aimed at developing fundamental volleyball skills. No directed invention method was included in the training program | Behavioural | Traditional Volleyball Training |
Primary outcome
Basic Volleyball Skills Performance
Time frame: Baseline (February 25, 2025) and immediately after completion of the 8-week training program (April 22, 2025).
Basic volleyball skills (finger pass, forearm pass, serve, block, and spike) were assessed before and after the 8-week training program using an observation-based rating procedure developed by three certified volleyball coaching experts. Finger and forearm pass accuracy was evaluated in designated court areas (1, 6, 5 and 2, 3, 4). Serve accuracy was assessed over three attempts toward designated target areas. Block and spike techniques were evaluated in areas 2, 3, and 4 near the net. Each successful attempt meeting the designated target or performance criterion received 5 points, while unsuccessful attempts received 0 points. The same procedure was used at baseline and immediately after the training program.
1 secondary outcome
Reaction Time
Time frame: Baseline (February 25, 2025) and immediately after completion of the 8-week training program (April 22, 2025).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. The datasets are available from the corresponding authors (hbulbul@bayburt.edu.tr) on request.
Related trials for Volleyball
RecruitingObservational study
Eye-Hand Cross-Dominance and Upper Extremity Performance in Volleyball Players
Volleyball Player
Recruiting
Diaphragmatic Facilitation and Upper Extremity Performance in Volleyball Players
Volleyball Players
RecruitingObservational study
Injury Risk Factors in Volleyball Players
Injury;Sports, Athletic Injuries
Recruiting
Acute Effects of Functional Inspiratory Muscle Training in Elite Male Volleyball Players
Athletic Performance
Not yet recruiting
FIFA 11+ in Young Female Volleyball Players
Sport Injuries
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Hüsniye ÇELİK, PhD principal investigator
Bayburt University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Directed Invention Method + Traditional Volleyball Training and Traditional Volleyball Training in people with Volleyball and Reaction Time, run by Hüsniye ÇELİK at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Basic Volleyball Skills Performance (time frame: Baseline (February 25, 2025) and immediately after completion of the 8-week training program (April 22, 2025).). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Oct 2026.