JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014, 47, 181–185 NUMBER 1 (SPRING)

USING GOAL SETTING AND FEEDBACK TO INCREASE WEEKLY

RUNNING DISTANCE
STEPHANIE R. WACK, KIMBERLY A. CROSLAND, AND RAYMOND G. MILTENBERGER
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

We evaluated goal setting with performance feedback to increase running distance among 5 healthy
adults. Participants set a short-term goal each week and a long-term goal to achieve on completion of
the study. Results demonstrated that goal setting and performance feedback increased running
distance for all participants.
Key words: running, sports, goal setting, performance feedback

The Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion (2010) recommend that individuals engage
in physical activity for at least 30 min on most
days of the week. The benefits of regular exercise
include weight control, enhanced muscle
strength, improved cardiovascular health, mental
wellness, and possible life extension (Dishman,
1991). Behavioral interventions such as goal
setting and performance feedback have been
shown to be useful to achieve behavior change in
the realm of health, sports, and fitness (Martin,
Thompson, & Regehr, 2004).
Goal setting has been employed in competitive
sports such as soccer (Brobst & Ward, 2002),
football (Ward & Carnes, 2002), and rugby
(Mellalieu, Hanton, & O’Brien, 2006), and
results from these studies suggest that setting
goals can enhance specific skills for both
individual athletes and teams. Other studies
demonstrate that the combination of goal setting
and individualized feedback can be even more
effective than goal setting alone (Stokes, Luiselli,
Reed, & Fleming, 2010). Although previous
research has shown that goal setting and feedback
can increase performance in a variety of athletic
activities, no studies have examined individual
running performance. The purpose of the current
study was to examine the effects of goal setting
Address correspondence to Kimberly Crosland, Depart-
ment of Child and Family Studies, University of South
Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612 (e-mail: crosland@usf.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.108
and performance feedback for increasing running
distance among healthy adults.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Five women, 18 to 28 years old, participated in
the study. Participants were recruited through
flyers posted around the University of South
Florida campus. All participants were college
students who expressed an interest in being a part
of the study for the purpose of increasing overall
weekly running distance. Participants were
included in the study only if they were in good
health and did not have any conditions that
would pose health risks, as indicated by the
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire
(Thomas, Reading, & Shephard, 1992).
Measurement and Design
At the initial meeting with the researcher, each
participant received information about the study
and the running equipment (i.e., Nikeþ SportKit
and Nikeþ sensor pouch). The SportKit consists
of the Nikeþ SportBand and sensor. Before
individual calibration, the accuracy of the device
for each run is estimated to be around 90%, and
after calibration it is between 90% and 100%
(“Nikeþ iPod: User guide,” 2010). Distance per
running episode was recorded using the Sport-
Band and sensor. A running episode was defined
as a continuous run at a speed faster than a brisk
walk (4 miles per hour; 6.4 km per hour).

181
182 STEPHANIE R. WACK et al.

We used a multiple baseline design across
participants with an embedded changing criteri-
on design for Intervention 2 to assess the effects of
goal setting and performance feedback for each
participant. To assess interobserver agreement,
two independent observers, the researcher and
the participant, recorded the date and the
distance (rounded to the nearest 10th) per
running episode. These data were extracted
from both the nikerunning.com website and
from the SportBand. Interobserver agreement,
assessed for 100% of the runs across all
participants, was 97% (range, 91% to 100%).
Finally, a four-item social validity questionnaire,
with items rated on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree), was
provided at the end of the study to assess each
individual’s opinion of the intervention.
Procedure
Baseline. During baseline, the participants
wore the SportBand during each run but did
not set short- or long-term goals. Baseline data
collection lasted 2 to 4 weeks.
Intervention 1: Daily goal setting and feedback.
Following baseline, each participant met with
the researcher to set a long-term distance goal
(a distance the participant aimed to run in a single
running episode by the conclusion of the study)
and short-term goals (set at each weekly feedback
meeting). The participant was required to set a
goal to run at least three times per week and, to set
a higher goal for the next week, she had to
complete at least two of the three runs at or above
her set criterion level with the most recent run
recorded at or above the criterion level (see
Table 1 for weekly goals and goal achievement). If
the participant did not meet these requirements,
she could choose to remain at the same criterion
level or lower her goal for the next week. Weekly
meetings (in person or via video conference)
lasted no longer than 20 min and were conducted
to provide visual and descriptive performance
feedback to the participant and to set short-term
goals. The visual feedback consisted of a graphical
display of the participant’s running distance, and
the descriptive feedback consisted of a verbal
description of daily progress delivered by the

Table 1
Participants’ Weekly Goals and Goal Achievement (in Miles) during Interventions 1 and 2.

Week Amye Evan Kelsey Jackie Mary

1 3.5 (5.6 km)  2a
0.5 (0.8 km)  2a
0.3 (0.48 km)  2 3 (4.8 km)  2 0.3 (0.48 km)  2a
2 4.0 (6.4 km)  2a 0.8 (1.2 km)  2 0.3 (0.48 km)  2a 2.5 (4 km)  2 0.5 (0.8 km)  2
3 4.3 (6.9 km)  2 0.5 (8.8 km)  2a 0.5 (0.8 km)  2 4 (6.4 km)a 0.4 (0.64 km)  2a
4 4 (6.4 km)  2 0.6 (0.96 km)  2a 1 (1.6 km)a 4 (6.4 km)a 0.8 (1.2 km)  2
5 4 (6.4 km)  2 0.7 (1.1 km)  2a 1 (1.6 km)a 5.5 (8.9 km)a 0.5 (.8 km)  2
6 3.8 (6.1 km)  2a 0.8 (1.2 km)  2a 2 (3.2 km)a 5.5 (8.9 km)a 1.5 (2.4 km)a
7 4.8 (7.7 km)  2a 2 (3.2 km)a 7 (11.2 km)a 1.5 (2.4 km)
8 5.3 (8.5 km)  2 3 (4.8 km)a 7 (11.2 km)a 1.5 (2.4 km)a
9 5.3 (8.5 km)  2a 3 (4.8 km)a 7 (11.2 km)a 3.0 (4.8 km)a
10 6 (9.6 km)  2a 3 (4.8 km)a 3.0 (4.8 km)a
11 6 (9.6 km)  2a 4.3 (6.9 km)a
12 4.3 (6.9 km)
13 4.3 (6.9 km)a
14 5 (8 km)a
15 5 (8 km)a
16 5 (8 km)a

Note. Intervention 2 started in Week 4 for Kelsey, Week 3 for Jackie, and Week 6 for Mary. The line separates goals set in
Intervention 1 and Intervention 2. To increase a goal for Intervention 1, participants were required to run at least three times a
week (at least two of those times had to meet or exceed the set distance). To increase a goal for Intervention 2, participants
were required to meet or exceed their weekly goal at least two consecutive weeks. Baseline data are not included.
a
Goal achieved.
 GOAL SETTING TO INCREASE DISTANCE 183

primary researcher. The participant was asked to

upload her runs onto nikerunning.com before
the weekly meeting. The nikerunning.com
website housed a cumulative record of distance
run for each participant that could be viewed on a
daily, weekly, or monthly basis.
Intervention 2: Weekly goal setting and feedback.
Three participants failed to meet their criterion
on multiple occasions, so a modified version of
Intervention 1 was implemented. Intervention 2
consisted of goal setting and feedback, but short-
term goals were set based on weekly, instead of
daily, running distance. This modification did
not require a minimum number of runs per week.
However, running distance had to be at or above
criterion for at least 2 weeks before setting a new
goal, and the last week could not fall below
criterion level. The long-term goal was the
number of miles that each participant wanted
to be running on a weekly basis by the conclusion
of the study. We informed the participants of the
intervention change and explained that their
short-term goals would be set to reflect their total
distance run over the 7-day period. Participants
were provided the option of remaining in
Intervention 1 or moving to Intervention 2,
and all three participants decided to participate in Figure 1. Miles run per week for Amye (top) and Evan
the second intervention. (bottom).

increased slightly from 0 miles in baseline to 0.6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All five participants increased their running
distance with goal setting and performance
feedback. Figure 1 shows the results for Amye
and Evan. Amye’s running distance increased
from a baseline mean of 5.7 miles per week
(9.2 km per week) to a mean of 15.5 miles per
week (24.9 km per week) in the last 3 weeks of
intervention. Amye achieved her weekly goals
during 7 of the 11 weeks. Evan increased from a
baseline mean of 0.1 miles per week (0.2 km per
week) to a mean of 2.4 miles per week (3.9 km
per week) in the last 3 weeks of intervention. She
achieved her goal on 5 of 6 weeks. Figure 2 shows
the results for Kelsey, Jackie, and Mary. Kelsey
miles per week (1 km per week) in Intervention 1,
achieving her goal only once. During Interven-
tion 2, Kelsey achieved her weekly goals in all
7 weeks with a mean of 3.8 miles per week
(6.1 km per week) in the last 3 weeks. Jackie’s
running distance was 5.2 miles per week (8.4 km
per week) in baseline and 4.5 miles per week
(7.2 km per week) in Intervention 1. Jackie
achieved her goal in all 7 weeks in Intervention 2,
with a mean of 7.6 miles per week (12.2 km per
week) in the last 3 weeks. Mary slightly increased
her running from 0 miles in baseline to a mean of
0.9 miles per week (1.4 km per week) in
Intervention 1, achieving her goal only twice in
5 weeks. In Intervention 2, Mary achieved her
184 STEPHANIE R. WACK et al.
Figure 2. Miles run per week for Kelsey (top), Jackie
(middle), and Mary (bottom). Dashed lines represent the
overall weekly distance goals that were set for each participant.
weekly goal in 9 of 11 weeks, with a mean of 5.7
miles per week (9.2 km per week) in the last
3 weeks.
Table 1 shows each participant’s weekly goals.
Weekly goals were met on 80% of opportunities
by Amye and 83.3% of opportunities by Evan
during Intervention 1. Weekly goals were met
33%, 0%, and 40% of opportunities during
Intervention 1 for Kelsey, Jackie, and Mary,
respectively. However, Kelsey, Jackie, and Mary
met their goals on 100%, 100%, and 82% of
opportunities, respectively, during Intervention
2. For Amye’s Week 4, Jackie’s Week 2, and
Mary’s Week 5, goals were not met because they
did not meet all of the contingencies set for
increasing the goal in Intervention 1. The results
of the social validity questionnaire showed that all
participants enjoyed participating in the study
(M ¼ 4.8), were happy with the results they
achieved (M ¼ 4.8), thought the goal-setting
procedure was motivating (M ¼ 4.6), and
planned to continue running at the study’s
conclusion (M ¼ 4.8).
In this study, participants set weekly goals for
their running distance. Goal-setting procedures
in which criterion levels are set for an individual’s
behavior (Brobst & Ward, 2002) may function as
an establishing operation that enhances the re-
inforcing value of goal achievement (Miltenberger,
2012). If an individual sets a goal to run a minimum
of three times a week (at or above a set distance), he
or she may be more likely to engage in the behavior
and contact the reinforcing consequence. The stated
goal may act as a rule that generates an aversive
condition that is escaped by engaging in exercise
(Malott, 1996). Delayed reinforcement in the form
of positive feedback and praise for goal accomplish-
ment may also influence achievement of the goal.
In summary, this study demonstrated the
effectiveness of goal setting and performance
feedback to improve running performance.
Further research should be conducted to demon-
strate the robustness of these findings. This study
was also the first to employ a single-subject design
to evaluate an intervention for increasing running
distance and the first to incorporate the use of the
Nikeþ SportKit as an automated method of
recording. Automated recording created a per-
manent product measure so researchers did not
have to rely on self-report from participants.
The use of automated recording lessened the
possibility of data falsification that can result from
self-recording. Another advantage of the SportKit
 GOAL SETTING TO INCREASE DISTANCE
was that each participant could see her progress
toward her goal on the SportBand watch.
One limitation of this study is a lack of
maintenance data. In addition, it is not known
whether the participants would continue to run
without the social support provided by the
researchers. Future research should examine long-
term maintenance of goal setting and perfor-
mance feedback with and without social support.
REFERENCES
Brobst, B., & Ward, P. (2002). Effects of public posting, goal
setting, and oral feedback on the skills of female soccer
players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 247–
257. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-247
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Physical
activity for everyone: The benefits of physical activity.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/
everyone/health/index.html
Dishman, R. K. (1991). Increasing and maintaining exercise
and physical activity. Behavior Therapy, 22, 345–378.
doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80371-5
Malott, R. W. (1996). Self-management, rule-governed
behavior, and everyday life. In H. W. Reese &
L. W. Parrott (Eds.), Behavior science: Philosophical,
methodological, and empirical advances (pp. 207–228).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
185
Martin, G. L., Thompson, K., & Regehr, K. (2004). Studies
using single-subject designs in sport psychology:
30 years of research. The Behavior Analyst, 27, 263–
280.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & O’Brien, M. (2006). The
effects of goal setting on rugby performance. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 257–261. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2006.36-05
Miltenberger, R. G. (2012). Behavior modification: Principles
and procedures (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thompson Learning.
Nikeþ iPod: User guide. (2010). Apple Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.nikeplus.com
Stokes, J. V., Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., & Fleming, R. K.
(2010). Behavioral coaching to improve offensive line
pass-blocking skills of high school football athletes.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 463–472. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2010.43-463
Thomas, S., Reading, J., & Shephard, R. J. (1992). Revision
of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire
(PAR-Q). Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 17,
338–345.
Ward, P., & Carnes, M. (2002). Effects of posting self-set
goals on collegiate football players’ skill execution
during practice and games. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 35, 1–12. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-1
Received January 3, 2013
Final acceptance October 7, 2013
Action Editor, David Wilder