year 9, Issue 3 (Autumn 2021)
Ann Appl Sport Sci 2021, 9(3): 0-0 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Hasan U. Statistical and Practical Significance of Articles at Sports Biomechanics Conferences. Ann Appl Sport Sci 2021; 9 (3)
URL: http://aassjournal.com/article-1-947-en.html
URL: http://aassjournal.com/article-1-947-en.html
Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Al-Kitab University, Altun Kupri, Iraq , dr_udayhasan@yahoo.com
Abstract: (3191 Views)
Background. The importance of using statistical approaches has increased and became necessary for researchers and specialists in sports biomechanics because they need more objective and accurate methods to increase knowledge.
Objectives. Evaluate the reality of using practical significance in the articles published in scientific conferences in the biomechanical sport.
Methods. One hundred twenty-four articles were analyzed of 134 in terms of statistical approaches to calculate practical significance. These results were then compared with those of statistical significance to reveal the extent of similarities or differences between the results.
Results. The mean test, which was the most commonly used descriptive statistical test, was applied in 114 articles (i.e., 92%); the T-test of paired samples, which was the most used difference measurement tests, was involved in 45 papers (i.e., 36%), statistical tests that measure the relationship between variables were used in 46 articles (i.e., 37%). Likewise, no items used advanced statistical tests except for six articles (i.e., 5%), which used regression and factor analysis. T-test independent samples are the most used statistical tests in sports biomechanics articles in which the results of practical significance matched those of statistical significance (88%).
Conclusion. The use of practical significance was almost non-existent. Also, it was observed that there was a large percentage of practical significance mismatch with the statistical significance of many statistical tests, which was a considerable negative indicator that affected the quality of sports biomechanics articles.
Objectives. Evaluate the reality of using practical significance in the articles published in scientific conferences in the biomechanical sport.
Methods. One hundred twenty-four articles were analyzed of 134 in terms of statistical approaches to calculate practical significance. These results were then compared with those of statistical significance to reveal the extent of similarities or differences between the results.
Results. The mean test, which was the most commonly used descriptive statistical test, was applied in 114 articles (i.e., 92%); the T-test of paired samples, which was the most used difference measurement tests, was involved in 45 papers (i.e., 36%), statistical tests that measure the relationship between variables were used in 46 articles (i.e., 37%). Likewise, no items used advanced statistical tests except for six articles (i.e., 5%), which used regression and factor analysis. T-test independent samples are the most used statistical tests in sports biomechanics articles in which the results of practical significance matched those of statistical significance (88%).
Conclusion. The use of practical significance was almost non-existent. Also, it was observed that there was a large percentage of practical significance mismatch with the statistical significance of many statistical tests, which was a considerable negative indicator that affected the quality of sports biomechanics articles.
Full-Text [PDF 353 kb]
(1466 Downloads)
APPLICABLE REMARKS
APPLICABLE REMARKS
• We recommend using the practical significance tests to complement the statistical significance tests in the biomechanical articles.
• We believe that biomechanical researchers need to refer to the actual value of the functional significance in their studies to better comprehend such studies' results. At the same time, use these results by basing future reviews on suitable theoretical and practical bases.
• We also believe that researchers could do better by relying on advanced inferential statistics due to their significance in revealing the nested variables' relations.
• A further recommendation is that the research papers that are accepted for publication in the refereed journals need to be reviewed by statisticians and referees.
• We believe that biomechanical researchers need to refer to the actual value of the functional significance in their studies to better comprehend such studies' results. At the same time, use these results by basing future reviews on suitable theoretical and practical bases.
• We also believe that researchers could do better by relying on advanced inferential statistics due to their significance in revealing the nested variables' relations.
• A further recommendation is that the research papers that are accepted for publication in the refereed journals need to be reviewed by statisticians and referees.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Sport Biomechanics and its related branches
Received: 2020/11/3 | Accepted: 2021/01/23
Received: 2020/11/3 | Accepted: 2021/01/23
References
1. Davis SG. Statistics and Biomechanics: An Interdisciplinary Evaluation of the Mathematical, Practical, and Athletic Applications of Principal Component Analysis. Gardner-Webb University2018.
2. Amrhein V, Trafimow D, Greenland S. Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don't Expect Replication. Am Stat [Internet]. 2019;73(1):262-70. [DOI:10.1080/00031305.2018.1543137]
3. Nataliia B, Lolita D, Oksana S, Serhiyenko K, Vitaly U, Olha S. Using the methods of mathematical statistics in sports and educational research of masters in physical education and sport. J Phys Educ Sport [Internet]. 2019;19(3):1030-4.
4. Vagenas G, Palaiothodorou D, Knudson D. Thirty-year Trends of Study Design and Statistics in Applied Sports and Exercise Biomechanics Research. Int J Exerc Sci. 2018;11(1):239-59.
5. Knudson D. Significant and meaningful effects in sports biomechanics research. Sports biomechanics. 2009;8(1):96-104. [DOI:10.1080/14763140802629966] [PMID]
6. Chen A, Zhu W. Revisiting the Assumptions for Inferential Statistical Analyses: A Conceptual Guide. Quest [Internet]. 2001;53(4):418-39. [DOI:10.1080/00336297.2001.10491756]
7. Gigerenzer G. Statistical Rituals: The Replication Delusion and How We Got There. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2018;1(2):198-218. [DOI:10.1177/2515245918771329]
8. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane BB. Statistical significance gives bias a free pass. European journal of clinical investigation. 2019;49(12):e13176. [DOI:10.1111/eci.13176] [PMID]
9. Gibson EW. The Role of p -Values in Judging the Strength of Evidence and Realistic Replication Expectations. Stat Biopharm Res [Internet]. 2020:1-13. [DOI:10.1080/19466315.2020.1724560]
10. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a World Beyond " p < 0.05.". Am Stat [Internet]. 2019;73(1):1-19. [DOI:10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913]
11. Heston T. A new definition of statistical significance. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(2):1262.
12. Kirk RE. Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come. Educ Psychol Meas [Internet]. 1996;56(5):746-59. [DOI:10.1177/0013164496056005002]
13. Harrison AJ, McErlain-Naylor SA, Bradshaw EJ, Dai B, Nunome H, Hughes GTG, et al. Recommendations for statistical analysis involving null hypothesis significance testing. Sports biomechanics. 2020;19(5):561-8. [DOI:10.1080/14763141.2020.1782555] [PMID]
14. Knudson D. Confidence crisis of results in biomechanics research. Sports biomechanics. 2017;16(4):425-33. [DOI:10.1080/14763141.2016.1246603] [PMID]
15. Batterham AM, Hopkins WG. Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2006;1(1):50-7. [DOI:10.1123/ijspp.1.1.50]
16. Wasserstein RL, Lazar NA. The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. Am Stat [Internet]. 2016;70(2):129-33. [DOI:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108]
17. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge; 2013. [DOI:10.4324/9780203771587]
18. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in psychology. 2013;4:863. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Wilkinson L. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. Am Psychol [Internet]. 1999;54(8):594-604. [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594]
20. Pierce G. The dilemma of attending (or not) scientific conferences. Can J Physiol Pharmacol [Internet]. 2014;92(1). [DOI:10.1139/cjpp-2013-0412]
21. Lees A. Biochemical assessment of individual sports for improved performance. Sports medicine. 1999;28(5):299-305. [DOI:10.2165/00007256-199928050-00001] [PMID]
22. Knudson D. Twenty Years of Authorship, Sampling, and References in Kinesiology Research Reports. Int J Kinesiol High Educ [Internet]. 2017;1(2):44-52. [DOI:10.1080/24711616.2017.1282760]
23. Gravetter FJ, Forzano LB. Research methods for the behavioural sciences. 4th ed. Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 2012.
24. Pini A, Markstrom JL, Schelin L. Test-retest reliability measures for curve data: an overview with recommendations and supplementary code. Sports biomechanics. 2019:1-22. [DOI:10.1080/14763141.2019.1655089] [PMID]
25. Šebjan U, Tominc P. Impact of support of teacher and compatibility with needs of study on usefulness of SPSS by students. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2015;53:354-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.022]
26. Hazra A, Gogtay N. Biostatistics Series Module 2: Overview of Hypothesis Testing. Indian journal of dermatology. 2016;61(2):137-45. [DOI:10.4103/0019-5154.177775] [PMID] [PMCID]
27. Cramer AO, van Ravenzwaaij D, Matzke D, Steingroever H, Wetzels R, Grasman RP, et al. Hidden multiplicity in exploratory multiway ANOVA: Prevalence and remedies. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2016;23(2):640-7. [DOI:10.3758/s13423-015-0913-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
28. George BJ, Beasley TM, Brown AW, Dawson J, Dimova R, Divers J, et al. Common scientific and statistical errors in obesity research. Obesity. 2016;24(4):781-90. [DOI:10.1002/oby.21449] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. Figueiredo Filho DB, Paranhos R, Rocha EC, Batista M, Silva JrJA, Santos MLWD. When is statistical significance not significant? Brazilian Polit Sci Rev [Internet]. 2013;7(1):31-55. [DOI:10.1590/S1981-38212013000100002]
30. Banerjee A, Chitnis UB, Jadhav SL, Bhawalkar JS, Chaudhury S. Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Industrial psychiatry journal. 2009;18(2):127-31. [DOI:10.4103/0972-6748.62274] [PMID] [PMCID]
31. Twycross A, Shields L. Statistics made simple Part 2 Standard deviation, variance and range. Paediatr Nurs [Internet]. 2004;16(5):24.
https://doi.org/10.7748/paed2004.06.16.5.24.c922
https://doi.org/10.7748/paed2004.10.16.8.24.c944
https://doi.org/10.7748/paed.16.8.24.s20 [DOI:10.7748/paed.16.5.24.s24]
32. McHugh ML. Descriptive statistics, Part II: Most commonly used descriptive statistics. Journal for specialists in pediatric nursing : JSPN. 2003;8(3):111-6. [DOI:10.1111/j.1088-145X.2003.00111.x] [PMID]
33. Derrick B, White P. Comparing two samples from an individual Likert question. Int J Math Stat. 2017;18(3).
34. Yim KH, Nahm FS, Han KA, Park SY. Analysis of statistical methods and errors in the articles published in the korean journal of pain. The Korean journal of pain. 2010;23(1):35-41. [DOI:10.3344/kjp.2010.23.1.35] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports medicine. 2000;30(1):1-15. [DOI:10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001] [PMID]
36. Gelman A, Stern H. The Difference Between "Significant" and "Not Significant" is not Itself Statistically Significant. Am Stat [Internet]. 2006;60(4):328-31. [DOI:10.1198/000313006X152649]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
