Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 253–263 | Cite as

An Applied Research Model for the Sport Sciences

  • David BishopEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

Sport science can be thought of as a scientific process used to guide the practice of sport with the ultimate aim of improving sporting performance. However, despite this goal, the general consensus is that the translation of sports-science research to practice is poor. Furthermore, researchers have been criticised for failing to study problems relevant to practitioners and for disseminating findings that are difficult to implement within a practical setting. This paper proposes that the situation may be improved by the adoption of a model that guides the direction of research required to build our evidence base about how to improve performance.

Central to the Applied Research Model for the Sport Sciences (ARMSS) described in this report is the idea that only research leading to practices that can and will be adopted can improve sporting performance. The eight stages of the proposed model are (i) defining the problem; (ii) descriptive research; (iii) predictors of performance; (iv) experimental testing of predictors; (v) determinants of key performance predictors; (vi) efficacy studies; (vii) examination of barriers to uptake; and (viii) implementation studies in a real sporting setting. It is suggested that, from the very inception, researchers need to consider how their research findings might ultimately be adapted to the intended population, in the actual sporting setting, delivered by persons with diverse training and skills, and using the available resources. It is further argued in the model that a greater understanding of the literature and more mechanistic studies are essential to inform subsequent research conducted in real sporting settings.

The proposed ARMSS model therefore calls for a fundamental change in the way in which many sport scientists think about the research process. While there is no guarantee that application of this proposed research model will improve actual sports performance, anecdotal evidence suggests that sport-science research is not currently informing sport-science practice as we would hope and that sport-science researchers need to consider a new approach.

Keywords

Lactate Threshold Sport Performance Effectiveness Trial Descriptive Research Propose Research Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on an invited lecture given at the 2nd Australian Association for Exercise and Sport Science (AAESS) conference: From Research to Practice. The author would also like to acknowledge the many sport scientists who read drafts of this document and provided valuable feedback. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

References

  1. 1.
    Bishop D, Burnett A, Farrow D, et al. Sports—science roundtable: does sports—science research influence practice. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2006; 1: 161–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farquhar CM, Stryer D, Slutsky J. Translating research into practice: the future ahead. Int J Qual Health Care 2002; 14: 233–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamb S, Greenlick MR, Mc Carty D. Bridging the gap between research and practice: forging partnerships with community—based drug and alcohol treatment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Webb C, Mackenzie J. Where are we now? Research—mindedness in the 1990s. J Clin Nurs 1993; 2: 129–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sussman S, Valente TW, Rohrbach LA, et al. Translation in the health professions: converting science into action. Eval Health Prof 2006; 29: 7–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ginexi EM, Hilton TF. What’s next for translation research? Eval Health Prof 2006; 29: 334–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenwood J. Nursing research: a position paper. J Adv Nurs 1984; 9: 77–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Camiah S. Utilization of nursing research in practice and application strategies to raise research awareness amongst nurse practitioners: a model for success. J Adv Nurs 1997; 26: 1193–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abraham A, Collins D. Examining and extending research in coach development. Quest 1988; 50: 59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flay BR. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med 1986; 15: 451–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greenwald P, Cullen JW. The new emphasis in cancer control. J Natl Cancer Inst 1985; 74: 543–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy—to—effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health 2003; 93: 1261–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finch C. A new framework for research leading to sports injury prevention. J Sci Med Sport 2006; 9: 3–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Mechelen W, Hlobil H, Kemper HC. Incidence, severity, aetiology and prevention of sports injuries: a review of concepts. Sports Med 1992; 14 (2): 82–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bishop D. Editorial. J Sci Med Sport 2007; 10: 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chalmers DJ. Descriptive studies: we need them but let’s keep them in perspective. J Sci Med Sport 2006; 9: 431–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atkinson G, Coldwells A, Reilly T, et al. The influence of age on diurnal variations in competitive cycling performances. J Sports Sci 1994; 12: 127–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bishop D, Edge J, Goodman C. Muscle buffer capacity and aerobic fitness are associated with repeated—sprint ability in women. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 92: 540–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bishop D. Physiological predictors of flat—water kayak performance in women. Eur J Appl Physiol 2000; 82 (1/2): 91–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bishop D, Edge J, Goodman C. The relationship between muscle buffer capacity and repeated—sprint ability in females. Eur J Appl Physiol 92: 2004; 540–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bishop D, Davis C, Edge J, et al. Induced metabolic alkalosis affects muscle metabolism and repeated—sprint ability. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36 (5): 807–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hagberg JM, Coyle EF. Physiological determinants of endurance performance as studied in competitive racewalkers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1983; 15: 287–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coyle EF, Coggan AR, Hopper MK, et al. Determinants of endurance in well—trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol 1988; 64 (6): 2622–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edge J, Bishop D, Goodman C. The effects of training intensity on muscle buffer capacity in females. Eur J Appl Physiol 2006; 96: 97–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Edge J, Bishop DJ, Goodman C. Effects of chronic NaHCO3 ingestion during interval—training on changes to muscle buffer capacity, metabolism and short—term endurance performance. J Appl Physiol 2006; 101: 918–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edge J, Bishop D, Goodman C. Effects of high— and moderate—intensity training on metabolism and repeated sprints. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: 1975–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mook DG. In defence of external validity. Am Psychol 1983; 38: 379–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moher D, Schultz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    CONSORT: transparent reporting of trials. The Consort E—flowchart [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.consortstatement.org/mod_product/uploads/CONSORT%202001%20flow%20diagram.doc) [Accessed 2007 Dec 27]
  30. 30.
    Sands WA. How can coaches use sports science? Mod Athl Coach 1998; 36: 8–12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rotheram-Borus M, Duan N. Next generation of prevention interventions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003; 42: 518–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof 2006; 29: 126–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Backer TE. Information alchemy: transforming information through knowledge utilization. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1993; 44: 217–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fuqua J, Stokols D, Gress J, et al. Transdisciplinary collaboration as a basis for enhancing the science and prevention of substance use and abuse. Subst Use Misuse 2004; 39: 1457–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elliott B, Khangure M. Disk degeneration and fast bowling in cricket: an intervention study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34: 1714–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gilbert W, Trudel P. Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970–2001. Res Q Exerc Sport 2004; 75: 388–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haag H. State—of—the—art review of sport pedagogy. Sport Sci Rev 1994; 3: 1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Motor ScienceUniversity of VeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations