# The Positive Effects on Volleyball Receiving Skills When Training with Lighter Balls
## 3 Results  
The data analysis generated three main themes representative of the training effects (group, time, and group \(\times\) time). The time and group \(\times\) time themes presented significant effects but the group factor did not. Because the group \(\times\) time factor was statistically significant, the simple effects were tested for differences between groups and within groups. The results are presented in Table 2.  
After the four-week training program, the LBTG scored 67.8 \(\pm\) 4.8, 73.6 \(\pm\) 4.4, and 78.9 \(\pm\) 5.6 points for receiving in the pre-test, week-2, and week-4, respectively. The HBTG scores were 69.9 \(\pm\) 5.1, 71.7 \(\pm\) 5.2, and 74.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 points, respectively; the NBTG scores were 68.4 \(\pm\) 5.1, 72.0 \(\pm\) 4.9, and 74.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 points, respectively; and the CG scored 69.3 \(\pm\) 4.8, 72.0 \(\pm\) 5.2, and 72.3 \(\pm\) 4.7, respectively. The two-factor mixed ANOVA revealed that the time factor was significant (F\({}_{2,\ 64}\) = 209.346, \(p\) < 0.001) and the time \(\times\) group factor was significant (F\({}_{6,\ 64}\) = 17.463, \(p\) < 0.001). However, the group factor was not significant (F\({}_{3,\ 32}\) = 0.340, \(p\) = 0.797). Therefore, a simple effects test was carried out; the results showed no significant differences among the four groups at week-0 (F\({}_{3,\ 32}\) = 0.320, \(p\) = 0.811) or week-2 (F\({}_{3,\ 32}\) = 0.265, \(p\) = 0.850). A significant difference was revealed among the four groups at week-4 (F\({}_{3,\ 32}\) = 2.922, \(p\) = 0.049). The post hoc analysis suggested that the LBTG was significantly better than the CG (\(p\) = 0.042). The LBTG showed a significant difference in the training effect within the group (F\({}_{2,\ 24}\) = 11.217, \(p\) < 0.001), demonstrating that its training effect was week-4 \(>\) week-0 and week-2 \(>\) week-0. The NBTG showed a significant difference in the training effect within the group (F\({}_{2,\ 24}\) = 4.087, \(p\) = 0.030), demonstrating t \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Week-0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Week-2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Week-4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Week-2/Week-0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Week-4/Week-0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Analysis of Variance**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **95\% CI** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **95\% CI** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **95\% CI** & **ES (Changed \%)** & **ES (Changed \%)** & **F (\(p\))** & **Post-hoc** \\ \hline LBTG & 67.8 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 64.3-71.2 & 73.6 \(\pm\) 4.4 & 70.1-76.9 & 78.9 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 75.5-82.3 & 0.53 (8.6\%) & 0.72 (16.4\%) & \begin{tabular}{c} week-4 \(>\) \\ (\(<\)0.001) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} week-4 \(>\) \\ week-2 \\ week-0 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline HBTG & 69.9 \(\pm\) 5.1 & 66.5-73.3 & 71.7 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 68.3-75.1 & 74.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 70.9-77.7 & 0.17 (2.6\%) & 0.42 (6.3\%) & \begin{tabular}{c} 1.194 \\ (0.320) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} week-4 \(>\) \\ week-0 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline NBTG & 68.4 \(\pm\) 5.1 & 65.1-71.7 & 72.0 \(\pm\) 4.9 & 68.7-75.3 & 74.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 71.6-78.2 & 0.34 (5.3\%) & 0.56 (9.3\%) & \
\begin{tabular}{c} week-4 \(>\) \\ week-0 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline CG & 69.3 \(\pm\) 4.8 & 65.9-72.7 & 72.0 \(\pm\) 5.2 & 68.6-75.4 & 72.3 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 68.9-75.7 & 0.26 (3.8\%) & 0.30 (4.3\%) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.598 \\ (0.558) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \end{tabular} Data are shown as mean \(\pm\) SD; 95\% CI = 95\% confidence interval; ES = effect size; Changed % = relative changes between measurements (\%).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of analysis of variance for repeated measures for training effect within the group. that its training effect was week-4 > week-0. The HBTG (F2, 24 = 1.194, \(p\) = 0.320) and CG (F2, 24 = 0.598, \(p\) = 0.558) showed no significant training effects. The results implied that the LBTG progressively improved their serve-reception effectiveness as the number of weeks increased, with a significant effect at week-2 and a significant improvement over the CG at week-4.