Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: The role of sample sizes

158 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Development and initial validation of the Life Skills Scale for Sport (2017, background): “A sample size greater than 200 is considered adequate for CFA (e.g., Barrett, 2007; Brown, 2006; Myers, Ahn, & Jin, 2011) and approximates the fiveyear median sample size for correlational studies across the major sport and exercise psychology journals (Schweizer & Furley, 2016).”
The effects of imagery interventions in sports: a meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “Such an analysis is, however, useful to provide benchmark data allowing valid comparisons across studies and a-priori sample size calculations (Moher et al., 1994; Schweizer & Furley, 2016).”
Mindfulness and acceptance approaches to sporting performance enhancement: a systematic review (2017, background): “…can be resistant to experimental designs in which they are given placebos or control conditions (Martin et al., 2005), and smaller pools of potential participants and funding can lead to inadequate sample sizes (Schweizer & Furley, 2016) or less well-controlled studies (Martin et al., 2005).”