Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 15;5(4):87.
doi: 10.3390/sports5040087.

Current Research and Statistical Practices in Sport Science and a Need for Change

Affiliations

Current Research and Statistical Practices in Sport Science and a Need for Change

Jake R Bernards et al. Sports (Basel). .

Abstract

Current research ideologies in sport science allow for the possibility of investigators producing statistically significant results to help fit the outcome into a predetermined theory. Additionally, under the current Neyman-Pearson statistical structure, some argue that null hypothesis significant testing (NHST) under the frequentist approach is flawed, regardless. For example, a p-value is unable to measure the probability that the studied hypothesis is true, unable to measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result, and unable to provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis. Many of these downfalls are key questions researchers strive to answer following an investigation. Therefore, a shift towards a magnitude-based inference model, and eventually a fully Bayesian framework, is thought to be a better fit from a statistical standpoint and may be an improved way to address biases within the literature. The goal of this article is to shed light on the current research and statistical shortcomings the field of sport science faces today, and offer potential solutions to help guide future research practices.

Keywords: Bayesian; inference; magnitude; sport science; statistics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Greenland S., Senn S.J., Rothman K.J., Carlin J.B., Poole C., Goodman S.N., Altman D.G. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2016;31:337–350. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis J.P. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis J.P. Discussion: Why “An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature” is false. Biostatistics. 2013;15:28–36. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxt036. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chambers C.D., Feredoes E., Muthukumaraswamy S.D., Etchells P. Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond. AIMS Neurosci. 2014;1:4–17. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4. - DOI
    1. Ioannidis J.P. Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012;7:645–654. doi: 10.1177/1745691612464056. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources