Interpreting Statistical Significance and Meaningfulness in Adapted Physical Activity Research

Abstract

The unqualified use of statistical significance tests for interpreting the results of empirical research has been called into question by researchers in a number of behavioral disciplines. This paper reviews what statistical significance tells us and what it does not, with particular attention paid to criticisms of using the results of these tests as the sole basis for evaluating the overall significance of research findings. In addition, implications for adapted physical activity research are discussed. Based on the recent literature of other disciplines, several recommendations for evaluating and reporting research findings are made. They include calculating and reporting effect sizes, selecting an alpha level larger than the conventional .05 level, placing greater emphasis on replication of results, evaluating results in a sample size context, and employing simple research designs. Adapted physical activity researchers are encouraged to use specific modifiers when describing findings as significant.

The influences of professional development on teachers' self-efficacy toward educational change

“…Using a more tolerant p value (i.e. 0.10) is often recommended when data from field-based research are analysed as small sample sizes lack the power to detect differences at the traditional 0.05 level (Sutlive & Ulrich, 1998). Because we were primarily interested in determining if our professional development activities were effective in increasing teachers' efficacy, we wanted to decrease the risk of making a Type II error (i.e.…”

Evaluation of an aquatics programme on fitness parameters of individuals with a brain injury

“…An effect size of 0.50 indicates that half a standard deviation separates the average participant between groups. An effect size ranging from 0.20-0.50 is considered a small effect, 0.50-0.80 medium and greater than 0.80 large [42,43].…”

Multidimensional Self-Efficacy and Affect in Wheelchair Basketball Players

“…Given the dearth of research in this area, it was determined that making a Type II error would be more serious than making a Type I error (Franks & Huck, 1986). See Sutlive and Ulrich (1998) for a discussion of the value of selecting larger alpha levels in adapted physical activity research.…”