↓ Skip to main content

The Applicability of Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change to Motor Learning Research—A Behavioral Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Applicability of Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change to Motor Learning Research—A Behavioral Study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo Furlan, Annette Sterr

Abstract

Motor learning studies face the challenge of differentiating between real changes in performance and random measurement error. While the traditional p-value-based analyses of difference (e.g., t-tests, ANOVAs) provide information on the statistical significance of a reported change in performance scores, they do not inform as to the likely cause or origin of that change, that is, the contribution of both real modifications in performance and random measurement error to the reported change. One way of differentiating between real change and random measurement error is through the utilization of the statistics of standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). SEM is estimated from the standard deviation of a sample of scores at baseline and a test-retest reliability index of the measurement instrument or test employed. MDC, in turn, is estimated from SEM and a degree of confidence, usually 95%. The MDC value might be regarded as the minimum amount of change that needs to be observed for it to be considered a real change, or a change to which the contribution of real modifications in performance is likely to be greater than that of random measurement error. A computer-based motor task was designed to illustrate the applicability of SEM and MDC to motor learning research. Two studies were conducted with healthy participants. Study 1 assessed the test-retest reliability of the task and Study 2 consisted in a typical motor learning study, where participants practiced the task for five consecutive days. In Study 2, the data were analyzed with a traditional p-value-based analysis of difference (ANOVA) and also with SEM and MDC. The findings showed good test-retest reliability for the task and that the p-value-based analysis alone identified statistically significant improvements in performance over time even when the observed changes could in fact have been smaller than the MDC and thereby caused mostly by random measurement error, as opposed to by learning. We suggest therefore that motor learning studies could complement their p-value-based analyses of difference with statistics such as SEM and MDC in order to inform as to the likely cause or origin of any reported changes in performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Psychology 6 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 40 36%
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 04 August 2023.
All research outputs
#15,889,940
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,059
of 7,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,319
of 336,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#118
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 336,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.