Hello everyone. I was given five abstracts and was asked to identify each as being an example of either:
A.) Analytical research
B.) Descriptive research
C.) Experimental research
D.) Qualitative research
It's alot to read, but any help I can get from you guys would be much appreciated. So far, I think abstract 2 is Qualitative and abstract 5 is Analytical, however, I'm not really that confident in my answers.
Abstract #1 Wajswelner et al. (2012)
Purpose: This single-assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy of physiotherapy-delivered clinical Pilates and general exercise for chronic low back pain. Methods: Eighty-seven community volunteers with low back pain for ≥3 months and age 18–70 were randomized to either the Pilates (n = 44) or general exercise (n = 43) group. The primary outcome was pain/disability measured with the Quebec scale. Secondary outcomes included pain on a numeric rating scale, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire, quality of life, and global perceived effect of treatment. All participants attended 60-min exercise sessions twice weekly for 6 wk supervised by a physiotherapist and performed daily home exercises that were continued during the follow-up. Participants from the clinical Pilates group received an individualized direction-specific exercise program prescribed by the physiotherapist after a clinical examination. The general exercise group received a generic set of exercises that were multidirectional and nonspecific. Outcomes were assessed after 6 wk (primary time point) and at 12 and 24 wk. Differences in mean change were compared between groups using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values of the outcome. Results: Eighty-three participants (96%) completed the 6-wk intervention and 60 (69%) completed the 24-wk follow-up. At 6 wk, no difference was found between groups for change in the Quebec scale (3.5, 95% confidence interval = −7.3 to 0.3, P = 0.07); both groups showed significant improvements. Similar results were found at the 12- and 24-wk follow-up and for the secondary outcome measures. Conclusions: An individualized clinical Pilates program produced similar beneficial effects on self-reported disability, pain, function and health-related quality of life as a general exercise program in community volunteers with chronic low back pain.
Abstract #2 Woods & Rhoades (2012)
In this study, we examined National Board certified physical education teachers' (NBCPETs) perceptions of change as a result of certification. Randomly selected NBCPETs were interviewed. Analysis was done through the lens of Lawson's (1989) Model of the Interactive Factors Influencing Workplace Conditions for the Physical Education Teacher. Several themes connected to teachers' views of themselves as NBCPETs surfaced. In particular, more teaching reflection and a greater focus on student learning and assessment, including an increased emphasis on individualizing teaching were described. An elevation in their perceived status and credibility and expanded opportunities within the educational community also emerged. Alternatively, several NBCPETs explained that the certification process had little or no effect on their teaching.
Abstract #3 Hanlon & Bir (2012)
Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to collect real-time head acceleration data for soccer impacts during girls’ youth (U14) soccer play. Methods: Linear and angular head accelerations were collected during girls’ youth soccer scrimmages using a wireless head acceleration measurement device (the Head Impact Telemetry System). After field data collection, each individual impact was analyzed. The type of impact, header or nonheader, was determined, and nonheader impacts were further assessed by the category of impact. The head injury criterion and resultant linear and angular accelerations were analyzed and compared with current injury tolerance values for all impacts. Results: A total of 47 header and 20 nonheader impacts were observed during the study. The front of the head experienced more headers than the other locations (n = 17). Header impacts ranged in peak linear acceleration from 4.5g to 62.9g and in peak angular head acceleration from 444.8 to 8869.1 rad·s−2. The majority of the nonheader impacts (40%) were player collisions with other players. Only one goalpost collision occurred, but it resulted in the highest peak angular acceleration (5179.5 rad·s−2) and was the only nonheader impact to exceed any of the tolerance levels. Conclusions: Head accelerations were found to exceed the majority of previous laboratory studies. None of the impacts exceeded linear acceleration tolerance values for concussion, but angular accelerations did exceed the suggested limits. Three angular acceleration measurements for heading events (4509.8, 5298.3, and 8869.1 rad·s−2) exceeded the concussion tolerance values, but no concussions were diagnosed during the study.
Abstract #4 Rangan et al. (2011)
Purpose: An active lifestyle is widely recognized as having a beneficial effect on cardiovascular health. However, no clear consensus exists as to whether exercise training increases overall physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) or whether individuals participating in regular exercise compensate by reducing their off-exercise physical activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in PAEE in response to aerobic training (AT), resistance training (RT), or combined aerobic and resistance training (AT/RT). Methods: Data are from 82 participants in the Studies of Targeted Risk Reduction Interventions through Defined Exercise-Aerobic Training versus Resistance Training study, a randomized trial of overweight (body mass index = 25-35 kg·m−2) adults, in which participants were randomized to receive 8 months of AT, RT, or AT/RT. All subjects completed a 4-month control period before randomization. PAEE was measured using triaxial RT3 accelerometers, which subjects wore for a 5- to 7-d period before and after the exercise intervention. Data reduction was performed with a previously published computer-based algorithm. Results: There was no significant change in off-exercise PAEE in any of the exercise training groups. We observed a significant increase in total PAEE that included the exercise training, in both AT and AT/RT but not in RT. Conclusions: Eight months of exercise training was not associated with a compensatory reduction in off-exercise physical activity, regardless of exercise modality. The absence of compensation is particularly notable for AT/RT subjects, who performed a larger volume of exercise than did AT or RT subjects. We believe that the extended duration of our exercise training program was the key factor in allowing subjects to reach a new steady-state level of physical activity within their daily lives.
Abstract #5 Kay et al. (2012)
Introduction: The benefits of preexercise muscle stretching have been recently questioned after reports of significant poststretch reductions in force and power production. However, methodological issues and equivocal findings have prevented a clear consensus being reached. As no detailed systematic review exists, the literature describing responses to acute static muscle stretch was comprehensively examined. Methods: MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, and Zetoc were searched with recursive reference checking. Selection criteria included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials and intervention-based trials published in peer-reviewed scientific journals examining the effect of an acute static stretch intervention on maximal muscular performance. Results: Searches revealed 4559 possible articles; 106 met the inclusion criteria. Study design was often poor because 30% of studies failed to provide appropriate reliability statistics. Clear evidence exists indicating that short-duration acute static stretch (<30 s) has no detrimental effect (pooled estimate = −1.1%), with overwhelming evidence that stretch durations of 30–45 s also imparted no significant effect (pooled estimate = −1.9%). A sigmoidal dose–response effect was evident between stretch duration and both the likelihood and magnitude of significant decrements, with a significant reduction likely to occur with stretches ≥60 s. This strong evidence for a dose–response effect was independent of performance task, contraction mode, or muscle group. Studies have only examined changes in eccentric strength when the stretch durations were >60 s, with limited evidence for an effect on eccentric strength. Conclusions: The detrimental effects of static stretch are mainly limited to longer durations (≥60 s), which may not be typically used during preexercise routines in clinical, healthy, or athletic populations. Shorter durations of stretch (<60 s) can be performed in a preexercise routine without compromising maximal muscle performance.