先验功率分析在运动行为研究中的应用较少

IF 0.8 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
B. McKay, Abbey Corson, Mary-Anne Vinh, Gianna Jeyarajan, Chitrini Tandon, Hugh Brooks, Julie Hubley, Michael J. Carter
{"title":"先验功率分析在运动行为研究中的应用较少","authors":"B. McKay, Abbey Corson, Mary-Anne Vinh, Gianna Jeyarajan, Chitrini Tandon, Hugh Brooks, Julie Hubley, Michael J. Carter","doi":"10.1123/jmld.2022-0042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A priori power analyses can ensure studies are unlikely to miss interesting effects. Recent metascience has suggested that kinesiology research may be underpowered and selectively reported. Here, we examined whether power analyses are being used to ensure informative studies in motor behavior. We reviewed every article published in three motor behavior journals between January 2019 and June 2021. Power analyses were reported in 13% of studies (k = 636) that tested a hypothesis. No study targeted the smallest effect size of interest. Most studies with a power analysis relied on estimates from previous experiments, pilot studies, or benchmarks to determine the effect size of interest. Studies without a power analysis reported support for their main hypothesis 85% of the time, while studies with a power analysis found support 76% of the time. The median sample sizes were n = 17.5 without a power analysis and n = 16 with a power analysis, suggesting the typical study design was underpowered for all but the largest plausible effect size. At present, power analyses are not being used to optimize the informativeness of motor behavior research. Adoption of this widely recommended practice may greatly enhance the credibility of the motor behavior literature.","PeriodicalId":37368,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Motor Learning and Development","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Low Prevalence of A Priori Power Analyses in Motor Behavior Research\",\"authors\":\"B. McKay, Abbey Corson, Mary-Anne Vinh, Gianna Jeyarajan, Chitrini Tandon, Hugh Brooks, Julie Hubley, Michael J. Carter\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/jmld.2022-0042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A priori power analyses can ensure studies are unlikely to miss interesting effects. Recent metascience has suggested that kinesiology research may be underpowered and selectively reported. Here, we examined whether power analyses are being used to ensure informative studies in motor behavior. We reviewed every article published in three motor behavior journals between January 2019 and June 2021. Power analyses were reported in 13% of studies (k = 636) that tested a hypothesis. No study targeted the smallest effect size of interest. Most studies with a power analysis relied on estimates from previous experiments, pilot studies, or benchmarks to determine the effect size of interest. Studies without a power analysis reported support for their main hypothesis 85% of the time, while studies with a power analysis found support 76% of the time. The median sample sizes were n = 17.5 without a power analysis and n = 16 with a power analysis, suggesting the typical study design was underpowered for all but the largest plausible effect size. At present, power analyses are not being used to optimize the informativeness of motor behavior research. Adoption of this widely recommended practice may greatly enhance the credibility of the motor behavior literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Motor Learning and Development\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Motor Learning and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2022-0042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Motor Learning and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2022-0042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

先验的功率分析可以确保研究不会错过有趣的结果。最近的元科学表明,运动机能学研究可能力量不足,而且有选择性地报道。在这里,我们检查了功率分析是否被用于确保运动行为的信息研究。我们回顾了2019年1月至2021年6月期间发表在三份运动行为期刊上的每一篇文章。有13%的研究(k = 636)报告了检验假设的功效分析。没有研究以最小效应为目标。大多数有功效分析的研究依赖于先前实验、初步研究或基准的估计来确定感兴趣的效应大小。没有功效分析的研究报告85%的时间支持他们的主要假设,而有功效分析的研究发现76%的时间支持他们的主要假设。没有功效分析的中位数样本量为n = 17.5,有功效分析的中位数样本量为n = 16,这表明除了最大的似是而非的效应量外,典型研究设计的功效不足。目前,功率分析还没有被用于优化运动行为研究的信息量。采用这种广泛推荐的做法可以大大提高运动行为文献的可信度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Low Prevalence of A Priori Power Analyses in Motor Behavior Research
A priori power analyses can ensure studies are unlikely to miss interesting effects. Recent metascience has suggested that kinesiology research may be underpowered and selectively reported. Here, we examined whether power analyses are being used to ensure informative studies in motor behavior. We reviewed every article published in three motor behavior journals between January 2019 and June 2021. Power analyses were reported in 13% of studies (k = 636) that tested a hypothesis. No study targeted the smallest effect size of interest. Most studies with a power analysis relied on estimates from previous experiments, pilot studies, or benchmarks to determine the effect size of interest. Studies without a power analysis reported support for their main hypothesis 85% of the time, while studies with a power analysis found support 76% of the time. The median sample sizes were n = 17.5 without a power analysis and n = 16 with a power analysis, suggesting the typical study design was underpowered for all but the largest plausible effect size. At present, power analyses are not being used to optimize the informativeness of motor behavior research. Adoption of this widely recommended practice may greatly enhance the credibility of the motor behavior literature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Motor Learning and Development
Journal of Motor Learning and Development Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.40%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The Journal of Motor Learning and Development (JMLD) publishes peer-reviewed research that advances the understanding of movement skill acquisition and expression across the lifespan. JMLD aims to provide a platform for theoretical, translational, applied, and innovative research related to factors that influence the learning or re-learning of skills in individuals with various movement-relevant abilities and disabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信