Wall Drop Punt Kick & Catch: Contributions towards the creation of a new gross manipulative coordination test

2021 ◽  
pp. 174795412110375
Author(s):  
Rui Matos ◽  
Diogo Monteiro ◽  
Ricardo Rebelo-Gonçalves ◽  
Luís Coelho ◽  
Rogério Salvador ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Front Wall ◽  
Motor Competence ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Coordination Test ◽  
D Values ◽  
Competence Test ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Validation Testing ◽  
Better Than

This study aimed to search for age and sex differences on a manipulative eye-segmental (hand and foot) coordination task. It represents the first step towards a possible creation of a manipulative eye-hand and eye-foot coordination test that may be used in motor competence test batteries. One hundred and sixty-eight children (85 boys and 83 girls), with a mean age of 12.79 years old (±1.56) were assessed. Subjects had 30 seconds to achieve as many ball impacts as possible on a front wall (two meters apart), following a drop punt kick, rebound on the wall and catch sequence. Compared to girls’, boys’ performance was significantly better (p < .001) on each studied age (10, 11, 13 and 14), with large effect sizes (all four Cohen’s d values over 1.30). Besides, 10 and 11 years-old subjects’ performance, both in boys and in girls, was significantly lower than their 13 and 14 years-old subjects’ counterparts (p < .001, except for the comparison between 13 and 14 years-old subjects, on girls, where p < .01). All related effect sizes were large (all Cohen’s d values over 1.03). Results confirm literature, as boys’ performance on this manipulative task was significantly better than girls’ one. The results seem to be promising about the possible use of the task in question as an eye-hand and eye-foot coordination test in future. Further research needs to be performed, namely aiming its validation (testing its reliability and concurrent validity).

Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 615-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marnie E. Rice ◽  
Grant T. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Follow Up Studies ◽  
Roc Area ◽  
Cohen's D

scholarly journals Effect Size Guidelines, Sample Size Calculations, and Statistical Power in Gerontology

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R Brydges
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Pearson's R ◽  
Sample Size Calculations ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Pearson’S R

Abstract Background and Objectives Researchers typically use Cohen’s guidelines of Pearson’s r = .10, .30, and .50, and Cohen’s d = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 to interpret observed effect sizes as small, medium, or large, respectively. However, these guidelines were not based on quantitative estimates and are only recommended if field-specific estimates are unknown. This study investigated the distribution of effect sizes in both individual differences research and group differences research in gerontology to provide estimates of effect sizes in the field. Research Design and Methods Effect sizes (Pearson’s r, Cohen’s d, and Hedges’ g) were extracted from meta-analyses published in 10 top-ranked gerontology journals. The 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile ranks were calculated for Pearson’s r (individual differences) and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g (group differences) values as indicators of small, medium, and large effects. A priori power analyses were conducted for sample size calculations given the observed effect size estimates. Results Effect sizes of Pearson’s r = .12, .20, and .32 for individual differences research and Hedges’ g = 0.16, 0.38, and 0.76 for group differences research were interpreted as small, medium, and large effects in gerontology. Discussion and Implications Cohen’s guidelines appear to overestimate effect sizes in gerontology. Researchers are encouraged to use Pearson’s r = .10, .20, and .30, and Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g = 0.15, 0.40, and 0.75 to interpret small, medium, and large effects in gerontology, and recruit larger samples.

Cohen’s d and physicians’ opinion on effect size: a questionnaire on anemia treatment

2021 ◽  
pp. jim-2021-002031
Author(s):  
Kemal Hakan Gülkesen ◽  
Feyza Bora ◽  
Nevruz Ilhanli ◽  
Esin Avsar ◽  
Nese Zayim
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Deficiency Anemia ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
D Values ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Anemia Treatment

A well-known effect size (ES) indicator is Cohen’s d. Cohen defined d measures of small, medium, and large ES as 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively. This approach has been criticized because practical and clinical importance depends on the context of research. The aim of the study was to examine physicians’ perception of ES using iron deficiency anemia treatment as an example and observing the effects of pretreatment level and duration of treatment on the magnitude of ES. We prepared a questionnaire describing four different clinical studies: (1) 1 month of treatment of anemia in a group of patients with a mean hemoglobin (Hb) of 10 g/dL; (2) 3 months of treatment at an Hb level of 10 g/dL; (3) 1 month of treatment at an Hb level of 8 g/dL; and (4) 3 months of treatment at an Hb level of 8 g/dL. In each scenario, respondents were required to evaluate six various levels of Hb improvement as being very small, small, medium, large, or very large effect: 0.1 g/dL, 0.3 g/dL, 0.7 g/dL, 1.1 g/dL, 1.7 g/dL, and 2.8 g/dL. The responses of 35 physicians were evaluated. For 10 mg/dL, the Cohen's d for small, medium, and large ES was 0.5, 0.8, and 1.2 respectively, for 1 month of treatment. In terms of 3 months of treatment, the Cohen's d was 0.8, 1.2, and 2, respectively. Two separate pretreatment Hb levels (8 g/dL and 10 g/dL) demonstrated a minor difference. Determination of ES during the planning phase of studies requires thorough evaluation of specific clinical cases. Our results are divergent from the classic Cohen’s d values. Additionally, duration of treatment affects ES perception.

scholarly journals Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Sample and Setting

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Anthony Klein ◽  
Michelangelo Vianello ◽  
Fred Hasselman ◽  
Byron Gregory Adams ◽  
Reginald B. Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Task Order ◽  
Q Statistic ◽  
Cohen's D

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance to examine variation in effect magnitudes across sample and setting. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples and 15,305 total participants from 36 countries and territories. Using conventional statistical significance (p &lt; .05), fifteen (54%) of the replications provided evidence in the same direction and statistically significant as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p &lt; .0001), fourteen (50%) provide such evidence reflecting the extremely high powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications had effect sizes larger than the original finding and 21 (75%) had effect sizes smaller than the original finding. The median comparable Cohen’s d effect sizes for original findings was 0.60 and for replications was 0.15. Sixteen replications (57%) had small effect sizes (&lt; .20) and 9 (32%) were in the opposite direction from the original finding. Across settings, 11 (39%) showed significant heterogeneity using the Q statistic and most of those were among the findings eliciting the largest overall effect sizes; only one effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity. Only one effect showed a Tau &gt; 0.20 indicating moderate heterogeneity. Nine others had a Tau near or slightly above 0.10 indicating slight heterogeneity. In moderation tests, very little heterogeneity was attributable to task order, administration in lab versus online, and exploratory WEIRD versus less WEIRD culture comparisons. Cumulatively, variability in observed effect sizes was more attributable to the effect being studied than the sample or setting in which it was studied.

scholarly journals Combining images and anatomical knowledge to improve automated vein segmentation in MRI

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip G. D. Ward ◽  
Nicholas J. Ferris ◽  
Parnesh Raniga ◽  
David L. Dowe ◽  
Amanda C. L. Ng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Automated Segmentation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Common Space ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Performance Metric ◽  
Susceptibility Maps ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Better Than

AbstractPurposeTo improve the accuracy of automated vein segmentation by combining susceptibility-weighted images (SWI), quantitative susceptibility maps (QSM), and a vein atlas to produce a resultant image called a composite vein image (CV image).MethodAn atlas was constructed in common space from 1072 manually traced 2D-slices. The composite vein image was derived for each subject as a weighted sum of three inputs; a SWI image, a QSM image and the vein atlas. The weights for each input and each anatomical location, called template priors, were derived by assessing the accuracy of each input over an independent data set. The accuracy of venograms derived automatically from each of the CV image, SWI, and QSM image sets was assessed by comparison with manual tracings. Three different automated vein segmentation techniques were used, and ten performance metrics evaluated.ResultsVein segmentations using the CV image were comprehensively better than those derived from SWI or QSM images (mean Cohen’s d = 1.1). Sixty permutations of performance metric and automated segmentation technique were evaluated. Vein identification improvements that were both large and significant (Cohen’s d>0.80, p<0.05) were found in 77% of the permutations, compared to no improvement in 5%.ConclusionThe accuracy of automated venograms derived from the composite vein image was overwhelmingly superior to venograms derived from SWI or QSM alone.

scholarly journals The Effects of Multi-Component Interventions on Cognition: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 650-650
Author(s):  
Sangwoo Ahn ◽  
Joel Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Cohen's D

Abstract Given the lack of a cure for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the number of people with AD is expected to surge unless the onset is delayed. Although there have been efforts to examine the effects of single-domain neuroprotective interventions on cognition, no conclusive results have been found so far. Due to the multifactorial causes of AD, interventions combining multiple neuroprotective components may induce more beneficial effects. However, there are few comprehensive reviews evaluating the effects of multi-domain programs on cognition. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of currently available multi-component interventions on cognition such as global cognition, episodic memory, and/or executive function affected early in AD. The literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO up to September 2020. Of the 1,445 articles located, 17 met eligibility criteria (n = 10,056, mean age = 72.8 years). According to the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, 8 and 9 studies had strong and moderate overall quality, respectively. The effect sizes of each included study were calculated using Cohen’s d. Multi-component interventions comprising physical activity, cognitive exercise, cardioprotective nutrition, and/or cardiovascular health consultation/education exerted beneficial effects on cognition (very small to moderate effect sizes; Cohen’s d = 0.16 to 0.77). Clinically, health care providers are recommended to consider those elements to potentially stave off AD. There is a pressing need for researchers to identify optimally effective doses of neuroprotective multi-component interventions.

The Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life questionnaire measures health-related quality of life of adolescents with spinal deformities better than the reference standard, the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 1404-1415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Caronni ◽  
Sabrina Donzelli ◽  
Fabio Zaina ◽  
Stefano Negrini
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Research Society ◽  
Spinal Deformities ◽  
Scoliosis Research Society ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Better Than

Objective: To compare the validity of the Italian Spine Youth Quality of Life (ISYQOL) questionnaire with that of the Scoliosis Research Society 22 (SRS22) questionnaire, the criterion standard for health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measurement in adolescents with spinal deformities. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Outpatient clinic. Subjects: Consecutive adolescents (10–18 years; 541 wearing brace) affected by idiopathic scoliosis (642 females, 100 males) or hyperkyphosis (87 females, 109 males). Interventions: NA. Main measures: The Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rho) between ISYQOL and SRS22 was used to assess ISYQOL concurrent validity. Sex, age, severity, bracing, trunk appearance and deformity type were assessed for known-groups validity. Cohen’s d quantified between-groups differences. Multiple linear regression exploring the effect of sex, age, body mass index (BMI), severity, bone age, trunk appearance, physiotherapy, bracing and sport on HRQOL of scoliosis patients was used to assess concurrent validity further. Results: Satisfactory correlations were found between ISYQOL and SRS22 (scoliosis, rho = 0.71; kyphosis, rho = 0.56). Known-groups validity analysis showed that ISYQOL detects all the between-groups differences detected by SRS22 and a males-females difference undetected by SRS22. ISYQOL Cohen’s d was larger than SRS22 Cohen’s d in three between-groups comparisons and similar in the others. Brace, sport and scoliosis severity were independently related to ISYQOL (linear regression: R2 = 0.23; p < 0.001). Brace, sport and physiotherapy were related to SRS22 ( R2 = 0.17). Conclusions: ISYQOL showed high validity when used to measure HRQOL in adolescents with spinal deformities. Moreover, ISYQOL performs better than SRS22, having better known-groups validity and (contrary to SRS22) detecting the impact of disease severity on HRQOL.

scholarly journals A Renewed Outbreak of the COVID−19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study of Distress, Resilience, and Subjective Well-Being

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 7743
Author(s):  
Shaul Kimhi ◽  
Yohanan Eshel ◽  
Hadas Marciano ◽  
Bruria Adini
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Subjective Well Being ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Distress Symptoms ◽  
Sense Of Danger ◽  
Cohen's D

Considering the potential impact of COVID-19 on the civil society, a longitudinal study was conducted to identify levels of distress, resilience, and the subjective well-being of the population. The study is based on two repeated measurements conducted at the end of the pandemic’s “first wave” and the beginning of the “second wave” on a sample (n = 906) of Jewish Israeli respondents, who completed an online questionnaire distributed by an Internet panel company. Three groups of indicators were assessed: signs of distress (sense of danger, distress symptoms, and perceived threats), resilience (individual, community, and national), and subjective well-being (well-being, hope, and morale). Results indicated the following: (a) a significant increase in distress indicators, with effect sizes of sense of danger, distress symptoms, and perceived threats (Cohen’s d 0.614, 0.120, and 0.248, respectively); (b) a significant decrease in resilience indicators, with effect sizes of individual, community, and national resilience (Cohen’s d 0.153, 0.428, and 0.793, respectively); and (c) a significant decrease in subjective well-being indicators with effect sizes of well-being, hope, and morale (Cohen’s d 0.116, 0.336, and 0.199, respectively). To conclude, COVID-19 had a severe, large-scale impact on the civil society, leading to multidimensional damage and a marked decrease in the individual, community, and national resilience of the population.

scholarly journals A Novel Behavioral Intervention for Rural Appalachian Cancer Survivors: Participatory Development and Proof-of-Concept Testing of weSurvive (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Joyce Porter ◽  
Katherine E. Moon ◽  
Virginia T. LeBaron ◽  
Jamie Marie Zoellner
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Rural Communities ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Limited Efficacy ◽  
Cohen's D

BACKGROUND Addressing the modifiable health behaviors of cancer survivors is important in rural communities disproportionately impacted by cancer, such as those in Central Appalachia. Yet, such efforts are limited and existing interventions may not meet the needs of rural communities. OBJECTIVE To describe the development and proof-of-concept testing of weSurvive, a behavioral intervention for rural, Appalachian cancer survivors. METHODS The ORBIT Model, a systematic model for designing behavioral interventions, informed the study design. An advisory team (n=10) of community stakeholders and researchers engaged in a participatory process to identify desirable features for an intervention targeting rural cancer survivors. The resulting multi-modal, 13-week weSurvive intervention was tested with two cohorts of participants (n=12). Intervention components include in-person group classes and group and individualized telehealth calls. Indicators reflecting five feasibility domains (acceptability, demand, practicality, implementation, and limited-efficacy) were measured using concurrent mixed methods. Pre-post changes and effect sizes were assessed for limited-efficacy data. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to summarize data for other domains. RESULTS Participants reported high program satisfaction (acceptability). Indicators of demand included enrollment of cancer survivors with a variety of cancer types and attrition (8%), recruitment (59%), and attendance (62%) rates. Dietary (59%) and physical activity (83%) behaviors were the most frequently chosen behavioral targets. However, findings indicate that participants did not fully engage with action planning activities, including setting specific goals. Implementation indicators showed 100% researcher fidelity to delivery and retention protocols, while practicality indicators highlighted participation barriers. Pre-post changes in limited-efficacy outcomes regarding cancer-specific beliefs/knowledge and behavior-specific self-efficacy, intentions, and behaviors were in the desired directions and demonstrated small and moderate effect sizes. In regards to dietary and physical activity behaviors, effect sizes for fruit and vegetable intake, snack foods, dietary fat, and minutes of moderate-vigorous activity were small (Cohen’s d = 0.00 to 0.32), while the effect sizes for change in physical activity were small to medium (Cohen’s d = 0.22 to 0.45). CONCLUSIONS weSurvive has the potential to be a feasible intervention for rural Appalachian cancer survivors. weSurvive will be refined and further tested based on study findings, which also provide recommendations for other behavioral interventions targeting rural cancer survivors. Recommendations include adding additional recruitment and engagement strategies to increase demand and practicality as well as increasing accountability and motivation for participant involvement in self-monitoring activities through the use of technology (e.g., text messaging). Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of using a systematic model (e.g., the ORBIT framework) and small scale proof-of-concept studies when adapting or developing behavioral interventions, as doing so identifies the intervention potential for feasibility and identifies areas needing improvement prior to the more time and resource-intensive efficacy testing. CLINICALTRIAL n/a because not an RCT

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document