Journal of Trainology
Online ISSN : 2186-5264
ISSN-L : 2186-5264
Current issue
Showing 1-2 articles out of 2 articles from the selected issue
  • Scott J. Dankel
    2020 Volume 9 Issue 2 Pages 43-49
    Published: August 24, 2020
    Released: September 11, 2020

    Objectives: To demonstrate some alternate ways of presenting and analyzing pretest-posttest control group designs relative to what is commonly done in exercise science. An emphasis is placed on using simple examples and avoiding statistical jargon to enhance readability for exercise scientists. Design & Methods: To examine some concerns with how within subject figures illustrate data, statistics to interpret when ana lyzing pretest-posttest control groups designs, how to analyze studies involving three time points or those including a third factor, and values to use when testing assumptions of statistical tests. Results & Conclusions: To improve interpretation of data, researchers assessing pretest-posttest control group designs should report the change score and variability of the change score as opposed to only reporting pre-test and post-test variabilities. When performing a 2 × 2 (group by time) mixed ANOVA the interaction term is the only statistic that needs to be interpreted and no follow-up tests are necessary. When assessing a third time point, the most informative follow-up tests to a significant 3 × 2 (time by group) ANOVA involves performing all three 2 × 2 (time by group) interactions to keep the within subject nature of the data. When including a third factor (in addition to the time and group variables), researchers may wish to compute change scores to eliminate the factor of time and allow for the change to be directly assessed. When examining the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, it is important that the change scores meet the assumptions as opposed to the pre-test and post-test measures.

    Download PDF (621K)
Short Communication
  • Paul T Donahue, Erik Beiser, Samuel J Wilson, John C Garner
    Type: research-article
    2020 Volume 9 Issue 2 Pages 39-42
    Published: June 29, 2020
    Released: July 23, 2020

    Objectives: Previous investigations have shown that differences exist between positional groups within a team, which has led to more specific methods of training to enhance performance for that positional group during competition. The purpose of this investigation was to examine anthropometric and physical performance measures between these two classifications of baseball pitchers. Design and Methods: Twenty professional pitchers completed a battery of test including anthropometrics, body composition, vertical jump, sprint cycling, and shuttle run. All testing was performed during the preseason prior to the start of competition. Independent sample t-tests were performed on each variable between starters and relievers. Results: Significant differences were seen between starters and relievers in height (p < 0.05). No other variables showed statistically significant differences, though moderate effect sizes were present for sprint cycling and shuttle run times. Conclusion: Findings of this investigation lend support to training pitchers in a similar manner as no differences were seen been groups based on physical performance and anthropometric.

    Download PDF (237K)