Android app for archery technique: Prasetyo 2025 study

Seven boys from an Indonesian club, Selabora, shot six arrows each while being recorded with an Android app built by the authors; three of the club's coaches then rated their release on a scoring rubric in four parts: the preparation, meaning how the arrow is held between the fingers, the grip on the string, the release itself and the movement that follows it. The score, as a percentage of the maximum, was sorted into four bands.

Overall, 5 of the 7 archers (71.43%) fell in the 'poor' band (45-64%) and 2 (28.57%) in the 'good' band (65-84%); none was rated 'very good' or 'very poor'. Part by part, preparation and release had 6 of the 7 archers in the 'poor' band, grip and follow-through 5 of 7. The authors conclude that this group's release technique needs work.

The rubric, taken from a 2024 study, has four items and a total of 22 points; the authors report a Cronbach's alpha of 0.786. The sample was drawn from the club's 28 members, choosing trained boys with no current illness, aged 11 and 13. 'Android Studio' is the development environment used to build the app, which apparently serves to record and replay the shot; the paper does not explain what it measures, which camera was used or from what distance, or what kind of bow the boys shot. The data are reported only as percentages, with no means or statistics.

Despite the title, there is no biomechanical measurement at all: no angles, no forces, no timings. The result is the judgement of three coaches from the same club on a four-item rubric, and the paper does not say whether the three agreed or how their scores were combined. The abstract mentions 14 athletes and the methods 7, and twice the text calls the release an 'open smash', a term that has nothing to do with archery and was probably left over from another paper. The score bands are not linked to any outcome on the target. The registry flags the journal as having questionable editorial standards.

For an archer or coach this paper adds nothing new: that a group of 11 to 13-year-olds still has a release to sort out, in their coaches' view, is what one would expect at that age. It does not say which faults were most common, nor whether the app helps to see them better than an ordinary video. It remains an example of how an observation rubric can help a club follow progress, bearing in mind that the score depends on who is watching.