Author(s): DÜKING, P., FORSTER, A., WICKER, P., SPERLICH, B., Institution: TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF BRAUNSCHWEIG, Country: GERMANY, Abstract-ID: 409

INTRODUCTION:
Due to significant inter- and intra-individual variability in response to training, individualization of training procedures is necessary. For this individualization, wearable technologies (wearables) might be supportive in some scenarios, yet it is unknown if coaches use these technologies and what factors affect usage. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model, here we aim to: i) assess the use of wearables and influencing factors of wearables usage among coaches; ii) evaluate the impact of wearables on coaching decisions related to training procedures; and iii) identify factors that could enhance the willingness to use wearables in the context of training individualization.
METHODS:
A quantitative online survey which was based around the “Technology Acceptance Model” was conducted among German speaking coaches (n=36, including 15 females) of different performance levels. Questions included i) respondents’ socio demographics, ii) current use of, and factors influencing current use of wearable technologies to individualize aspects of training, as well as iii) factors which influence future intention to use wearable technology to individualize training procedures iv) impact of wearables on decision making regarding training procedures. Statistical analysis included correlation analysis including Bonferroni correction
RESULTS:
24 out of 36 coaches use wearables to individualize training procedures. Correlations exist between the current use of wearables with “job relevance” (0.84;p<0.005), “subjective norm” (0.57; 0.005), and “perceived usefulness” (0.49;p<0.005). Current decisions regarding training procedure only correlate with “output quality” (0.511;p<0.005), and “result demonstrability” (0.47;p<0.005). Future intention to use wearables to individualize training correlate with “perceived usefulness” (0.644;p<.005), “acquire knowledge about sensor technologies” (0.56;p<0.005), “result demonstrability” (0.53;p<0.005), and “whish for guidelines” (0.50;p<0.005).
CONCLUSION:
Various factors are associated with the current and future intention to use wearables, as well as their impact on coaches decisions in individualizing training procedures. Our data suggests that it is advisable i) for manufacturers to produce wearables with high output quality and clear demonstrability of results, in order to influence coaching decisions and ii) to equip coaches with comprehensive knowledge and guidelines regarding the use of wearables for the effective individualization of training procedures.