#003 – Goodhart’s Law, Leading & Lagging Indicators

There’s a lot of hype around the use of testing and technology in training and rehab centres. Access to data allows practitioners to use objective metrics to guide training and rehab. At first glance, this sounds great! We have access to more information than every before to make better decisions. But, the novelty of data has shifted the focus from sport performance to test performance. With all the focus on test performance, we’re seeing:
 
  • Practitioners focusing their training and rehab on test outcomes
 
  • Athletes focusing their off-season training to improve test outcomes
 
  • Coaches making playing decisions based on test outcomes

 

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
 
This is Goodhart’s Law. In other words, when we set a specific goal we neglect other important aspects to reach that goal. For example, jump height is correlated to skating speed making it a good outcome measure. So, there is often a focus on improving jump height in off-season training. Makes sense. But if the focus is on improving jump height, other qualities of skating speed get neglected. Practitioners are left scratching their heads when off-ice performance improves but on-ice doesn’t. 
 
Using leading and lagging indicators rather than testing goals
 
Practitioners should use off-ice testing as indicators for on-ice performance. A leading indicator is a metric that predicts on outcome in advance while a lagging indicator is the final outcome. For example, jump height is correlated to on-ice speed making it a leading indicator. The desired outcome of training is to improve on-ice speed making it a lagging indicator. Jump height can help you track a driver of success of your program for improving skating speed. Yet, the training focus needs to be on improving skating speed and not jump height. This shift in mentality can make testing more meaningful and improve on-ice outcomes.
 
Anyone can collect objective measures, but how you use it will make the difference
 
Technology will become the norm in any centre working with athletes in the next 5-10 years. Everyone will have access to the same objective measures. And most will be successful in making improvements on these outcome measures. But using leading and lagging indicators will help make the most on-ice improvements.
 
Summary
 
  • Goodhart’s Law – when a measure becomes the target, it ceases to be a good measure

 

  • Practitioners are training to improve test outcomes rather than sport performance.

 

  • Correlated off-ice tests can tracked as drivers of success in on-ice performance

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *