Table 4.

Studies that analyzed the effects of training programs on decision-making in youth team-sports players.

	Groups Included	Objectives	Design	Measures (Pre-Post)	Main Results
Gil-Arias et al. [48]	Control and intervention	Compare the effects of video-feedback and questioning training program on decision-making	Two groups were implemented by 11 weeks (N = 4, experimental group; N = 4, control). The study had three phases: (i) pre-test; (ii) intervention; (iii) retention. Intervention occurred in a 6 vs. 6 format, viewing the attack action, self-analyzing and making reflections about the attack and combining analysis of a player-expert.	Seven categories were analyzed during attack actions, using the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): (i) base; (ii) adjust; (iii) decision-making; (iv) skill execution; (v) support; (vi) cover; and (vii) guard/mark	Between-group comparisons revealed significant changes during the intervention (p = 0.015; ES = 0.652) but not during the pre-test or retention stages. Within-group changes occurred in the experimental group when comparing the pre-test and intervention stages (p = 0.041) and the intervention and retention stages (p = 0.003).
Gil-Arias et al. [49]	Control and intervention	Compare the effects of video-feedback and questioning training program on decision-making	Two groups were implemented by 11 weeks (N = 5, experimental group; N = 6, control). The study had three phases: (i) pre-test (5 matches); (ii) intervention (11 matches); (iii) retention (5 matches). Players in the experimental group spent 45 min/session on the decision training, viewing the attack action, self-analyzing and making reflections about the attack and combining analysis of a player-expert.	The French and Thomas observation instrument were used to classify the decision-making as succeeded or non-succeeded. Technical actions were also classified as succeeded or non-succeeded. A questionnaire was used to assess the procedural knowledge.	The experimental group showed meaningful improvements in the mean percentage of successful decisions and executions when compared to the control group during the retention phase. However, no meaningful changes were found during the retention phase. Furthermore, no meaningful changes were found between groups in the pre-test or intervention stages in terms of declarative knowledge.
Navarro et al. [50]	Two intervention groups	Compare the effects of implicit and explicit training methods on penalty kicking performance	Participants were assigned to two groups: (i) low-saliency group (changes in task-difficulty were gradual) and (ii) high-saliency group (changes in task-difficulty were large. The practice consisted in three sessions.	Sixty kicks (30 in low-pressure and 30 in high-pressure) on the projected target circle were executed by players. Percentage of goalmouth hits, percentage of target hits, accuracy and percentage of kicks to correct side were analyzed.	Taking less time to make a decision decreased penalty kick performance. Both groups displayed excellent performance when more than 850 ms were given to decide and execute the kick. Implicit and explicit training methods resulted in similar levels of decision-making. However, implicit training increased kicking accuracy.
Panchuk et al. [22]	Control and intervention	Analyze the effects of immersive video on decision-making performance and transfer to passing performance in small-sided games.	Two groups were assigned: (i) training group (viewed 15 randomly selected immersive videos prior to the regular training session); and (ii) control group (only participated in training sessions). Training intervention lasted 3 weeks. Females had 10 intervention sessions and males 12.	Scores at immersive test (coaches classified the decisions made during the videos and this standard was compared with scores made by players) Scores at small-sided games depended from successful pass, hockey assist, assist, open shot, contested shot, deflected pass/bobble, passing turnover and dribble turnover.	In females, the control and intervention groups significantly improved their scores on an immersive test. In males, no group showed significant improvements despite a large magnitude of change in the intervention group. Considering performance in small-sided games, females did not significantly improve in either group (control and intervention) even though a large magnitude of changes were observed in the control group. Moreover, neither group of males significantly improved even though the magnitudes of changes in the intervention group were medium to large.
Pizarro et al. [30]	Intervention	Analyze the effect of a nonlinear pedagogy training program on the decision-making and execution of passing, dribbling and shooting.	Training intervention (nonlinear pedagogy) occurred in 12 training sessions distributed by 6 weeks. No control group was used.	Decision-making and execution were measured as the percentage of successful decisions/executions over the total number of decisions/executions made during matches. The Game Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) was used to classify the appropriate decision/executions in the following actions: (i) pass; (ii) dribbling; and (iii) shooting.	Decision-making related to passes and the execution of passes significantly improved in the tactical principles of maintaining ball possession and progression towards the goal. No significant improvements were found in the tactical principle of shooting with the lowest level of opposition. Only decision-making related to dribbling significantly improved in the tactical principles of progression towards the goal and shooting with the lowest level of opposition. No meaningful changes in decision-making or executions were found for shooting.
Praxedes et al. [51]	Intervention	Analyze the effect of two training programs on decision-making and technical execution.	Intervention 1: training program of 14 sessions (7 weeks) consisting in modified games with numerical superiority in attack. Intervention 2: training program of 14 sessions (7 weeks) consisting in modified games with numerical equality. All the players participated in both interventions. Intervention 1 occurred firstly and then intervention 2. A pre-intervention 1 and 2 occurred to determine the baseline levels before interventions.	Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) was used to classify the appropriate decision/executions in matches. Only the passes were analyzed.	The average skill-level group improved their decision-making and execution after intervention 1 (in comparison to baseline–pre-intervention 1). The low skill-level group improved their execution from pre-intervention 1 to intervention 2. The low skill-level group took longer to improve their execution and decision-making. Despite that, numerical superiority did not improve any group.
Praxedes et al. [52]	Control and intervention	Analyze the effect of a nonlinear-based training program in the decision-making and technical execution.	Two groups were compared: (i) experimental group (intervention with a non-linear training program) and (ii) control group (direct instruction). Experimental group made 4 motor tasks per session, each lasting 15 min. Intervention occurred during 14 sessions over 7 weeks	Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) was used to classify the appropriate decision/executions in matches. Passes and dribbling were analyzed.	The intervention group showed significant improvements in decision-making and the execution of passes when compared to the control group. However, no significant changes were found between groups for decision-making and the execution of dribbling actions. Moreover, the groups did not significantly improve the decision-making and execution of actions related to dribbling.
Praxedes et al. [29]	Intervention	Analyze the effect of a nonlinear-based intervention program on tactical behaviors and decision-making.	All the players started with direct instruction (six sessions for three weeks), moving to nonlinear pedagogy intervention (seven weeks) and finally a retention period of three weeks. No control group was used.	Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET) was used to classify the appropriate decision/executions in matches. Only passes were assessed.	Significant improvements in decision-making and performance behaviors were observed after the intermediate and final points of the acquisition phase. Additionally, significantly higher decision-making and execution scores were reported during retention when compared to baseline (pre-intervention).
Romeas et al. [53]	Control and intervention	Analyze the effect of a three-dimensional multiple object tracking task in decision-making accuracy on the field	The experimental group were actively trained ten times (twice a week for five consecutive weeks) participating in three CORE sessions of 3d-MOT Active control: participants focused on three-dimensional soccer videos (twice a week for five consecutive weeks) Passive control: no instruction or training.	Passing, dribbling and shooting accuracy were assessed. Decision accuracy and subjective decision-making accuracy were analyzed.	Decision-making accuracy in passing was significantly improved from the baseline to the post-intervention period in the 3-D-MOT group when compared to the control group. No significant changes between groups were found for dribbling or shooting.
Hohmann et al. [54]	Control and intervention	Analyze the effectiveness of video-based decision training	The study 1: two experimental groups (2-D and 3-D video group) were employed. Interventions occurred during 6 weeks and a retention test was performed 4 weeks after the end of intervention. The study 2: compare the performance of a 3-D video group with a tactic board group and a control group.	Percentage of correct first and best options, mean decision-time for first option and best option were measured in study 1.	The results of study 1 revealed that 3-D video simulation was slightly more effective than 2-D video simulation (regarding the decision-time). However, neither group improved in terms of the quality of choices made. In study 2, the 3-D group meaningfully decreased the amount of time it took to make a decision (turning faster) in comparison to the control group and tactic board group. The 3-D and tactic board groups revealed slight improvements in the quality of the best option from the post-test to retention.
Fortes et al. [55]	Control and intervention	Analyze the effectiveness of an imagery training program	Effects of 8-week period with three sessions/week were analyzed. Experimental group: imagery intervention during 10-min Control group watched videos of advertisements	The GPAI instrument was used to qualify the decisions.	Moderate positive effect of imagery training on the passing decision-making performance.