Literature DB >> 30358698

Effect Sizes for Paired Data Should Use the Change Score Variability Rather Than the Pre-test Variability.

Scott J Dankel1, Jeremy P Loenneke.   

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Dankel, SJ and Loenneke, JP. Effect sizes for paired data should use the change score variability rather than the pre-test variability. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1773-1778, 2021-Effect sizes provide a universal statistic detailing the magnitude of an effect while removing the influence of the sample size. Effect sizes and statistical tests are closely related with the exception that the effect size illustrates the magnitude of an effect in SD units, whereas the test statistic illustrates the magnitude of effect in SE units. Avoiding statistical jargon, we illustrate why calculations of effect sizes on paired data within the sports and exercise science literature are repeatedly performed incorrectly using the variability of the study sample as opposed to the variability of the actual intervention. Statistics and examples are provided to illustrate why effect sizes are being calculated incorrectly. The calculation of effect sizes when examining paired data supports the results of the test statistic, but only when the effect size calculation is made relative to the variability of the intervention (i.e., the change score SD) because this is what is used for the calculation of the test statistic. Effect size calculations that are made on paired data should be made relative to the SD of the change score because this provides the information of the statistical test while removing the influence of the sample size. After all, we are interested in how variable the intervention is rather than how variable the sample population is. Effect size calculations that are made on pre-test/post-test designs should be calculated as the change score divided by the SD of the change score.
Copyright © 2018 National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Year:  2021        PMID: 30358698     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002946

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  16 in total

1.  New Multisite Bioelectrical Impedance Device Compared to Hydrostatic Weighing and Skinfold Body Fat Methods.

Authors:  Andrew D Wells; Bryanne N Bellovary; Jonathan M Houck; Jeremy B Ducharme; Abdulaziz A Masoud; Ann L Gibson; Christine M Mermier
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2020-12-01

Review 2.  The impact of acute and chronic resistance exercise on muscle stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Scott Justin Dankel; Brenna M Razzano
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2020-06-12

3.  High and Low-speed Resistance Training Induce Similar Physical and Functional Responses in Older Women.

Authors:  Adria S N Noronha; Eduardo M Penna; Rayra K N Dias; Antenor B C DE Azevedo; Victor S Coswig
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2022-06-01

Review 4.  Blood Flow Restriction Training for the Intervention of Sarcopenia: Current Stage and Future Perspective.

Authors:  Xu-Zhi Zhang; Wen-Qing Xie; Lin Chen; Guo-Dong Xu; Li Wu; Yu-Sheng Li; Yu-Xiang Wu
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-13

5.  Effects of Six-week Periodized Versus Non-Periodized Kettlebell Swing Training on Strength, Power and Muscular Endurance.

Authors:  Evaldo Rui Tavares Santos Junior; Belmiro Freitas DE Salles; Ingrid Dias; Roberto Simão; Jeffrey M Willardson
Journal:  Int J Exerc Sci       Date:  2022-03-01

6.  Responsiveness of Device-Based and Self-Report Measures of Physical Activity to Detect Behavior Change in Men Taking Part in the Football Fans in Training (FFIT) Program.

Authors:  Craig Donnachie; Kate Hunt; Nanette Mutrie; Jason M R Gill; Paul Kelly
Journal:  J Meas Phys Behav       Date:  2020-03

7.  Low-intensity blood flow restriction calf muscle training leads to similar functional and structural adaptations than conventional low-load strength training: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Simon Gavanda; Eduard Isenmann; Yvonne Schlöder; Roland Roth; Jürgen Freiwald; Thorsten Schiffer; Stephan Geisler; Michael Behringer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Regional differences in hamstring muscle damage after a marathon.

Authors:  Ayako Higashihara; Kento Nakagawa; Takayuki Inami; Mako Fukano; Satoshi Iizuka; Toshihiro Maemichi; Satoru Hashizume; Takaya Narita; Norikazu Hirose
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Test-retest reliability of a smartphone app for measuring core stability for two dynamic exercises.

Authors:  Paloma Guillén-Rogel; Cristina Franco-Escudero; Pedro J Marín
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Heart Rate Variability Monitoring During Strength and High-Intensity Interval Training Overload Microcycles.

Authors:  Christoph Schneider; Thimo Wiewelhove; Christian Raeder; Andrew A Flatt; Olaf Hoos; Laura Hottenrott; Oliver Schumbera; Michael Kellmann; Tim Meyer; Mark Pfeiffer; Alexander Ferrauti
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.