Dealing with small samples in football research

References

• Aisbett J, Lakens D, Sainani K Magnitude based inference in relation to one-sided hypotheses testing procedures. Preprint. 2020. doi: 10.31236/osf.io/pn9s3.
   Google Scholar
• Althouse AD. 2016. Adjust for multiple comparisons? It’s not that simple. Ann Thorac Surg. 101(5):1644–1645. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.11.024.
   Google Scholar
• Anvari F, Lakens D. 2021. Using anchor-based methods to determine the smallest effect size of interest. J Exp Soc Psychol. 96. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104159
   Google Scholar
• Araujo A, Julious S, Senn S, Tu Y-K. 2016. Understanding variation in sets of N-of-1 trials. PLoS One. 11(12):e0167167. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167167.
   Google Scholar
• Bates BT. 1996. Single-subject methodology: an alternative approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 28(5):631–638.
   Google Scholar
• Bell ML, Fairclough DL. 2014. Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res. 23(5):440–459. doi:10.1177/0962280213476378.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett DA. 2001. How can I deal with missing data in my study? Aust N Z J Public Health. 25(5):464–469. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00294.x.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG, Rohlf FJ. 2013. In defence of logarithmic transformations. Stat Med. 32(21):3766–3768. doi:10.1002/sim.5772.
   Google Scholar
• Bolstad W, Curran J. 2016. Introduction to bayesian statistics. 3rd ed. Hoboken (New Jersey): John Whiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Bouchard C. 2015. Exercise genomics - a paradigm shift is needed. Br J Sports Med. 49(23):1492–1496. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095294.
   Google Scholar
• Buchheit M. 2016. Chasing the 0.2. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 11(4):417–418. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0220.
   Google Scholar
• Buja A, Cook D, Hofmann H, Lawrence M, Lee EK, Swayne DF, Wickham H. 2009. Statistical inference for exploratory data analysis and model diagnostics. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 367(1906):4361–4383.
   Google Scholar
• Bürkner P. 2017. brms: an R package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. J Stat Softw. 80(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01.
   Google Scholar
• Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR. 2013. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 14(5):365–376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475.
   Google Scholar
• Chipman HA, George E, McCulloch RE. 2010. BART: bayesian additive regression trees. Ann Appl Stat. 4(1):266–298. doi:10.1214/09-AOAS285.
   Google Scholar
• Chowdhury NR, Cook D, Hofmann H, Majumder M, Lee E, Toth AL. 2015. Using visual statistical inference to better understand random class separations in high dimension, low sample size data. Comput Stat. 30(2):293–316. doi:10.1007/s00180-014-0534-x.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran W. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Vol. 2, Routledge, New York . 2.
   Google Scholar
• Curran-Everett D. 2018. Explorations in statistics: the log transformation. Adv Physiol Educ. 42(2):343–347. doi:10.1152/advan.00018.2018.
   Google Scholar
• Dang Q, Mazumdar S, Houck PR. 2008. Sample size and power calculations based on generalized linear mixed models with correlated binary outcomes. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 91(2):122–127. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2008.03.001.
   Google Scholar
• Depaoli S, Winter SD, Visser M. 2020. The importance of prior sensitivity analysis in bayesian statistics: demonstrations using an interactive shiny app. Front Psychol. 11:608045. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.608045
   Google Scholar
• Estimation and Sample Size Determination for Finite Populations. Available from: https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/finite.pdf. Accessed 2021 May 30.
   Google Scholar
• Feng C, Wang H, Lu N, Tu XM. 2013. Log transformation: application and interpretation in biomedical research. Stat Med. 32(2):230–239. doi:10.1002/sim.5486.
   Google Scholar
• Field A, Miles J, Field Z. 2012. Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Galecki A, Burzykowski T. 2013. Linear mixed-effects models using R, Vol. 1. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S. 2006. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: i. Foundations and basic methods. Int J Epidemiol. 35(3):765–775. doi:10.1093/ije/dyi312.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland S, Mansournia MA, Altman DG. 2016. Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain sight. BMJ. i1981. d oi:10.1136 /bmj,i1981
   Google Scholar
• Harrison XA, Donaldson L, Correa-Cano ME, Evans J, Fisher DN, Goodwin CED, Robinson BS, Hodgson DJ, Inger R. 2018. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ. 6:e4794. doi:10.7717/peerj.4794
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Faude O, Meyer T, Donath L. 2018a. How to construct, conduct and analyze an exercise training study? Front Physiol. 9. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.01007.
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Heinze T, Faude O, Kindermann W, Meyer T. 2015a. Validity of lactate thresholds in inline speed skating. J Strength Cond Res. 29(9):2497–2502. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828a485c.
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Kraushaar J, Scharhag-Rosenberger F, Theisen D, Senn S, Meyer T. 2015b. Individual response to exercise training - a statistical perspective. J Appl Physiol. 118(12):1450–1459. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00714.2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Pitsch W, Julian R, Pfeiffer M, Kellmann M, Ferrauti A, Meyer T. 2017. A new method to individualize monitoring of muscle recovery in athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 12(9):1137–1142. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0120.
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Pitsch W, Rosenberger F, Meyer T. 2018b. Repeated testing for the assessment of individual response to exercise training. J Appl Physiol. 124(6):1567–1579. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00896.2017.
   Google Scholar
• Hecksteden A, Theisen D. 2015. Editorial based on the article: “Skeletal muscle signature of a champion sprint runner” by Scott Trappe and colleagues. J Appl Physiol. 118(12):1447–1448. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00102.2015.
   Google Scholar
• Hilgers R, Bogdan M, Burman C, Dette H, Karlsson M, König F, Male C, Mentré F, Molenberghs G, Senn S, et al. 2018. Lessons learned from IDeAl — 33 recommendations from the IDeAl-net about design and analysis of small population clinical trials. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 13(77). doi:10.1186/s13023-018-0820-8.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins WG How to Interpret Changes in an Athletic Performance Test. sportsciorg/jour/04/wghtestshtm. 2004; Accessed 2013 Jun 14.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, Hanin J. 2009. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 41(1):3–13. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278.
   Google Scholar
• Impellizzeri F, McCall A, Meyer T. 2019. Registered reports coming soon: our contribution to better science in football research. Sci Med Football. 3(2):87–88. doi:10.1080/24733938.2019.1603659.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. 2018. Why replication has more scientific value than original discovery. Behav Brain Sci. 41(E137). doi:10.1017/S0140525X18000729.
   Google Scholar
• James W, Stein C. 1961. Estimation with quadratic loss. Proc Fourth Berkeley Symp Math Statist Prob. 1:361–379.
   Google Scholar
• Kalkhoven JT, Watsford ML, Impellizzeri FM. 2020. A conceptual model and detailed framework for stress-related, strain-related, and overuse athletic injury. J Sci Med Sport. 23(8):726–734. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.02.002.
   Google Scholar
• Kinugasa T, Cerin E, Hooper S. 2004. Single-subject research designs and data analyses for assessing elite athletes’ conditioning. Sports Med. 34(15):1035–1050. doi:10.2165/00007256-200434150-00003.
   Google Scholar
• Kinugasa T, Miyanaga Y, Shimojo H, Nishijima T. 2002. Statistical evaluation of conditioning for an elite collegiate tennis player using a single-case design. J Strength Cond Res. 16(3):466–471.
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke J. 2015. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis - A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. 2. London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke JK. 2010. Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 1(5):658–676. doi:10.1002/wcs.72.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D. Sample Size Justification. Preprint. 2021; https://psyarxiv.com/9d3yf. Accessed 2021 May 30
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Caldwell AR. 2021. Simulation-Based power analysis for factorial analysis of variance designs. Ad Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 4(1):1–14. doi:10.1177/2515245920951503.
   Google Scholar
• Lakens D, Scheel C, Isager P. 2018. Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Ad Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 1(2):259–269. doi:10.1177/2515245918770963.
   Google Scholar
• Lenth RV. 2001. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Stat. 55(3):187–193. doi:10.1198/000313001317098149.
   Google Scholar
• Lo S, Andrews S. 2015. to transform or not to transform: using generalized mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front Psychol. 6:1171. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
   Google Scholar
• Logan BR, Sparapani R, McCulloch RE, Laud PW. 2019. Decision making and uncertainty quantification for individualized treatments using bayesian additive regression trees. Stat Methods Med Res. 28(4):1079–1093. doi:10.1177/0962280217746191.
   Google Scholar
• McNeish D. 2017. Missing data methods for arbitrary missingness with small samples. J Appl Stat. 44(1):24–39. doi:10.1080/02664763.2016.1158246.
   Google Scholar
• Mengersen KL, Drovandi CC, Robert CP, Pyne DB, Gore CJ, Chen CWS. 2016. Bayesian estimation of small effects in exercise and sports science. PLoS One. 11(4):e0147311. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147311.
   Google Scholar
• Nalborczyk L, Batailler C, Loevenbruck H, Vilain A, Bürkner P. 2019. An introduction to bayesian multilevel models using brms: a case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard indonesian. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 62(5):1225–1242. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0006.
   Google Scholar
• nullabor R package. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nullabor/vignettes/nullabor.html. Accessed 2021 May 30.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins DO, Wyatt RJ, Bartko JJ. 2000. Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the impact of measurement error on sample size requirements in clinical trials. Biol Psychiatry. 47(8):762–766. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(00)00837-4.
   Google Scholar
• Piccininni M, Konigorski S, Rohmann JL, Kurth T. 2020. Directed acyclic graphs and causal thinking in clinical risk prediction modeling. BMC Med Res Methodol. 20(1):179. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01058-z.
   Google Scholar
• Quintana D, Williams D. 2018. Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP. BMC Psychiatry. 18(178). doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1761-4.
   Google Scholar
• Reboussin DM, Morgan TM. 1996. Statistical considerations in the use and analysis of single-subject designs. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 28(5):639–644.
   Google Scholar
• Rodgers JL. 1999. The bootstrap, the jackknife, and the randomization test: a sampling taxonomy. Multivariate Behav Res. 34(4):441–456. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3404_2.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani KL. 2018. The problem with “magnitude-based inference”. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 50(10):2166–2176. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001645.
   Google Scholar
• Sainani KL, Borg DN, Caldwell AR, Butson ML, Tenan MS, Vickers AJ, Vigotsky AD, Warmenhoven J, Nguyen R, Lohse KR, et al. 2021. Call to increase statistical collaboration in sports science, sport and exercise medicine and sports physiotherapy. Br J Sports Med. 55(2):118–122. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102607
   Google Scholar
• Scheel AM, Tiokhin L, Isager PM, Lakens D. 2020. Why hypothesis testers should spend less time testing hypotheses. Perspect Psychol Sci. PubMed PMID: 33326363:1745691620966795. doi:10.1177/1745691620966795
   Google Scholar
• Science and Medicine in Football: Aims and scope. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=rsmf20. Accessed 2020 Dec 15.
   Google Scholar
• Science and Medicine in Football: Author Guidelines. https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=rsmf20. Accessed 2020 Dec 15.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 1998. Applying results of randomised trials to patients. N of 1 Trials are Needed BMJ. 317(7157):537–538.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2004. Individual response to treatment: is it a valid assumption? BMJ. 329(7472):966–968. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7472.966.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2008. Transposed conditionals, shrinkage, and direct and indirect unbiasedness. Epidemiology. 19(5):652–654. discussion 657-8. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e318181b3e3.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2011a. You may believe you are a bayesian but you are probably wrong. RMM - Special Topic: Statistical Science and Philosophy of Science. 2:48–66.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2011b. U is for unease: reasons for mistrusting overlap measures for reporting clinical trials. Stat Biopharm Res. 3(2):302–309. doi:10.1198/sbr.2010.10024.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2015. Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine. Stat Med. Epub 2015/ 09/30. doi:10.1002/sim.6739. PubMed PMID: 26415869.
   Google Scholar
• Senn S. 2017. Sample size considerations for n-of-1 trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 962280217726801. doi:10.1177/0962280217726801
   Google Scholar
• Senn S, Rolfe K, Julious SA. 2011. Investigating variability in patient response to treatment–a case study from a replicate cross-over study. Stat Methods Med Res. 20(6):657–666. doi:10.1177/0962280210379174.
   Google Scholar
• Senn SJ. 2002. Cross-over trials in clinical research. 2 ed. Chichester (United Kingdom): John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Skorski S, Hecksteden A, Pitsch W, Meyer T Individualized reference ranges to monitor fatigue in soccer. World Conference of Science in Soccer. 2017. Rennes / France.
   Google Scholar
• Statistical code from the IDeAL project for download. https://www.ideal.rwth-aachen.de/?page_id=806#toggle-id-11. Accessed 2020 Nov 26.
   Google Scholar
• Tan YV, Roy J. 2019. Bayesian additive regression trees and the General BART model. Stat Med. 38(25):5048–5069. doi:10.1002/sim.8347.
   Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Mellers BA, Scoblic JP. 2017. Bringing probability judgments into policy debates via forecasting tournaments. Science. 355(6324):481–483. doi:10.1126/science.aal3147.
   Google Scholar
• Trappe S, Luden N, Minchev K, Raue U, Jemiolo B, Trappe T. 2015. Skeletal muscle signature of a champion sprint runner. J Appl Physiol. 118(12):1460–1466. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00037.2015.
   Google Scholar
• Tukey LW. 1958. Bias and confidence in not quite large samples. Abstr Annu Math Stat. 29:614.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Schoot R, editor. 2020. Small sample size solutions: a guide for applied researchers and practitioners 1. Routledge, New York
   Google Scholar
• Van Doorn J, van den Bergh D, Bohm U, Dablander F, Derks K, Draws T, Etz A, Evans NJ, Gronau QF, Haaf JM, et al. 2021. The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a bayesian analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 28(3):813–826. doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01798-5
   Google Scholar
• Vlahovich N, Hughes DC, Griffiths LR, Wang G, Pitsiladis YP, Pigozzi F, Bachl N, Eynon N. 2017. Genetic testing for exercise prescription and injury prevention: AIS-Athlome consortium-FIMS joint statement. BMC Genomics. 18(Suppl 8):818. doi:10.1186/s12864-017-4185-5.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers EJ, Love J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, Selker R, Gronau QF, Dropmann D, Boutin B, et al. 2018. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: example applications with JASP. Psychon Bull Rev. 25(1):58–76. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
   Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers EJ, Morey R, Lee MD. 2016. Bayesian benefits for the pragmatic researcher. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 25(3):169–176. doi:10.1177/0963721416643289.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh AH, Knight EJ. 2015. “Magnitude-based inference”: a statistical review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 47(4):874–884. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000451.
   Google Scholar
• Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science. 330(6004):686–688. doi:10.1126/science.1193147.
   Google Scholar
• Zwaan RA, Etz A, Lucas RE, Donellan MB. 2018. Making replication mainstream. Behav Brain Sci. 41:e120. doi:10.1017/S0140525X17001972
   Google Scholar