BACKGROUND: Bilateral strength asymmetry and fatigue predispose athletes to various injuries and conventional methods appear to be poor predictors of lower extremity muscular performance under NF ...conditions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the conventional Hcon/Qcon (HQR) ratio and the dynamic control ratio (DCR: Hecc/Qcon) under non-fatiguing (NF) and fatiguing (F) conditions and verify the effects of heavy-intensity constant running and cycling exercise on the isokinetic performance. METHODS: Twenty healthy male participants performed running and cycling VO2max at work-rate associated with the achievement of VO2max (TTE). Isokinetic muscle strength performance was tested at 60 and 180∘/s before and after these sessions with 48-hour intervals. Quadriceps (QFR) and hamstring (HFR) muscle fatigue rates were also calculated during these sessions. Blood lactate concentration was measured before and two-minutes after running and cycling TTE. RESULTS: No between-condition differences were found for the HQR while the DCR decreased significantly at 180∘/s following cycling and running sessions (p< 0.05). Cycling TTE was positively correlated with in dominant (r= 0.535, p= 0.015) and non-dominant (r= 0.446, p= 0.048) QFR. Positive correlations were also found between running TTE and dominant (r= 0.500, p= 0.25) and non-dominant (r= 0.465, p= 0.039) HFR. CONCLUSIONS: The DCR obtained at fast angular velocities following a strenuous exercise seems to be the best indicator of muscle performance while its assessment under F conditions reveals higher ratios compared to NF conditions and conventional methods.
Improving the reproducibility of science Held, Leonhard; Schwab, Simon
Significance (Oxford, England),
February 2020, 2020-02-01, 20200201, Letnik:
17, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Leonhard Held and Simon Schwab introduce a new series of articles that will highlight topics related to the production of robust, effective and reproducible science
Leonhard Held and Simon Schwab ...introduce a new series of articles that will highlight topics related to the production of robust, effective and reproducible science.
This book examines test validity in the behavioral, social, and educational sciences by exploring three fundamental problems: measurement, causation and meaning. Psychometric and philosophical ...perspectives receive attention along with unresolved issues. The authors explore how measurement is conceived from both the classical and modern perspectives. The importance of understanding the underlying concepts as well as the practical challenges of test construction and use receive emphasis throughout. The book summarizes the current state of the test validity theory field. Necessary background on test theory and statistics is presented as a conceptual overview where needed.
Each chapter begins with an overview of key material reviewed in previous chapters, concludes with a list of suggested readings, and features boxes with examples that connect theory to practice. These examples reflect actual situations that occurred in psychology, education, and other disciplines in the US and around the globe, bringing theory to life. Critical thinking questions related to the boxed material engage and challenge readers. A few examples include:
What is the difference between intelligence and IQ?
Can people disagree on issues of value but agree on issues of test validity?
Is it possible to ask the same question in two different languages?
The first part of the book contrasts theories of measurement as applied to the validity of behavioral science measures.The next part considers causal theories of measurement in relation to alternatives such as behavior domain sampling, and then unpacks the causal approach in terms of alternative theories of causation.The final section explores the meaning and interpretation of test scores as it applies to test validity. Each set of chapters opens with a review of the key theories and literature and concludes with a review of related open questions in test validity theory.
Researchers, practitione
We conducted the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology to investigate the replicability of preclinical research in cancer biology. The initial aim of the project was to repeat 193 experiments from ...53 high-impact papers, using an approach in which the experimental protocols and plans for data analysis had to be peer reviewed and accepted for publication before experimental work could begin. However, the various barriers and challenges we encountered while designing and conducting the experiments meant that we were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers. Here we report these barriers and challenges. First, many original papers failed to report key descriptive and inferential statistics: the data needed to compute effect sizes and conduct power analyses was publicly accessible for just 4 of 193 experiments. Moreover, despite contacting the authors of the original papers, we were unable to obtain these data for 68% of the experiments. Second, none of the 193 experiments were described in sufficient detail in the original paper to enable us to design protocols to repeat the experiments, so we had to seek clarifications from the original authors. While authors were
or
for 41% of experiments, they were
for 9% of experiments, and
(or did not respond to us) for 32% of experiments. Third, once experimental work started, 67% of the peer-reviewed protocols required modifications to complete the research and just 41% of those modifications could be implemented. Cumulatively, these three factors limited the number of experiments that could be repeated. This experience draws attention to a basic and fundamental concern about replication - it is hard to assess whether reported findings are credible.
PDF
