↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Using a site-specific technical error to establish training responsiveness: a preliminary explorative study

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Using a site-specific technical error to establish training responsiveness: a preliminary explorative study
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s155440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan M Weatherwax, Nigel K Harris, Andrew E Kilding, Lance C Dalleck

Abstract

Even though cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) training elicits numerous health benefits, not all individuals have positive training responses following a structured CRF intervention. It has been suggested that the technical error (TE), a combination of biological variability and measurement error, should be used to establish specific training responsiveness criteria to gain further insight on the effectiveness of the training program. To date, most training interventions use an absolute change or a TE from previous findings, which do not take into consideration the training site and equipment used to establish training outcomes or the specific cohort being evaluated. The purpose of this investigation was to retrospectively analyze training responsiveness of two CRF training interventions using two common criteria and a site-specific TE. Sixteen men and women completed two maximal graded exercise tests and verification bouts to identify maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and establish a site-specific TE. The TE was then used to retrospectively analyze training responsiveness in comparison to commonly used criteria: percent change of >0% and >+5.6% in VO2max. The TE was found to be 7.7% for relative VO2 max. χ2 testing showed significant differences in all training criteria for each intervention and pooled data from both interventions, except between %Δ >0 and %Δ >+7.7% in one of the investigations. Training nonresponsiveness ranged from 11.5% to 34.6%. Findings from the present study support the utility of site-specific TE criterion to quantify training responsiveness. A similar methodology of establishing a site-specific and even cohort specific TE should be considered to establish when true cardiorespiratory training adaptations occur.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 7 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Psychology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,562,219
of 23,321,213 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#160
of 252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,286
of 331,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,321,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.