• Can we trust “Magnitude-based inference”?

      Nevill, AM; Williams, AM; Boreham, C; Wallace, ES; Davison, GW; Abt, G; Lane, AM; Winter, EM (Informa UK Limited, 2018-11-04)
      Since the times and works of William Sealy Gosset (1876-1937) and Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890-1962), imperfections of conventional null-hypothesis significance testing and in particular, use of P-values to evaluate such testing (invariably referred to as inferential statistics), have been well recognised (Wilkinson, 1999; Wasserstein and Lazar, 2016). Attempts have been made to identify alternatives. For example, Cohen's effect sizes (Cohen 1988) and region of practical equivalence procedure (ROPE) (Kruschke, 2014). A more recent alternative is magnitude-based inference (MBI) (Hopkins and Baterham, 2016) although unlike others, MBI has created considerable controversy when reporting the results of studies (almost exclusively used in the field of sport and exercise science). Instead of defining research effects as “significant” based on P-values (using traditional hypothesis testing), MBI uses terms such as “implementable” and “substantial” based on two constraints called the “risk of harm” and the “chance of benefit”. However, concerns have been raised about the MBI approach. Stanford statistician Kristin Sainani was so concerned about the consequences of using MBI that she wrote a formal analysis of the MBI method. Published in MSSE (Sainani, 2018) her paper showed that, depending on sample size and thresholds for harm/benefit, MBI produces false positive rates that can be two to six times greater than those using traditional hypothesis testing. A finding, she claims, that makes MBI less reliable.
    • Tibial impacts and muscle activation during walking, jogging and running when performed overground, and on motorised and non-motorised treadmills.

      Montgomery, G; Abt, G; Dobson, C; Smith, T; Ditroilo, M (Elsevier, 2016-06-27)
      Purpose To examine tibial acceleration and muscle activation during overground (OG), motorised treadmill (MT) and non-motorised treadmill conditions (NMT) when walking, jogging and running at matched velocities. Methods An accelerometer recorded acceleration at the mid-tibia and surface EMG electrodes recorded rectus femoris (RF), semitendinosus (ST), tibialis anterior (TA) and soleus (SL) muscle activation during OG, MT and NMT locomotion whilst walking, jogging and running. Results The NMT produced large reductions in tibial acceleration when compared with OG and MT conditions across walking, jogging and running conditions. RF EMG was small-moderately higher in the NMT condition when compared with the OG and MT conditions across walking, jogging and running conditions. ST EMG showed large and very large increases in the NMT when compared to OG and MT conditions during walking whilst SL EMG found large increases on the NMT when compared to OG and MT conditions during running. The NMT condition generated very large increases in step frequency when compared to OG and MT conditions during walking, with large and very large decreases during jogging and very large decreases during running. Conclusions The NMT generates large reductions in tibial acceleration, moderate to very large increases in muscular activation and large to very large decreases in cycle time when compared to OG and MT locomotion. Whilst this may decrease the osteogenic potential of NMT locomotion, there may be uses for NMTs during rehabilitation for lower limb injuries.