Abstract
ABSTRACTSome sorts of “evidence” in evidence-based practice seem to carry more weight (e.g., randomized controlled trials; RCTs) than others (e.g., case studies) in applied sport and exercise psychology research. In this article we explore some of the shibboleths of evidence-based treatment, and how some “gold standards,” such as RCTs (as they are often used or misused) may, when sub-optimally executed, provide only tenuous, incomplete, and confounded evidence for what we choose to do in practice. We inquire into the relevance and meaningfulness of practitioner-evacuated research and investigations that use flawed statistical reasoning, and we also ask a central question in evaluating evidence: just because some sorts of positive changes can be measured and counted in various treatment outcome research, do they really “count?”
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
