A school-based research project is investigating the physiological adaptations to a 10-week aerobic training program using both direct (laboratory) and indirect (field-based) measurements.
Critically analyse how the choice of data collection methods affects the validity, reliability, and credibility of findings in physiological investigations of aerobic training. (8 marks)
--- 20 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer
- Laboratory tests like VO₂ max testing give more accurate results because they directly measure oxygen use, but field tests like the Beep Test better show how people perform in real sports situations.
- Schools often can’t afford expensive lab equipment, so they use field tests which are easier to run but less precise, making researchers choose between perfect measurements and what’s actually possible.
- Lab equipment is complicated to use correctly and requires training, so when inexperienced students or teachers handle it, the results might not be as consistent as they should be.
- Field tests don’t always give the same results when repeated because they’re done in less controlled environments, but they might better motivate participants to try their hardest because they feel more like real competition.
- Testing too often can give more detailed results about how fitness improves, but participants might get better at the tests just from practise, which can make it look like the training is more effective than it really is.
- Using multiple types of measurements together (like heart rate, how hard the exercise feels, and performance scores) can give a better overall picture despite limitations of each individual measure.
- Researchers might unconsciously influence results if they expect certain outcomes, so it’s important to have neutral people conduct the tests when possible.
- School research needs to be honest about what the methods can and cannot show, rather than claiming the results are more accurate than they really are.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
- Laboratory tests like VO₂ max testing give more accurate results because they directly measure oxygen use, but field tests like the Beep Test better show how people perform in real sports situations.
- Schools often can’t afford expensive lab equipment, so they use field tests which are easier to run but less precise, making researchers choose between perfect measurements and what’s actually possible.
- Lab equipment is complicated to use correctly and requires training, so when inexperienced students or teachers handle it, the results might not be as consistent as they should be.
- Field tests don’t always give the same results when repeated because they’re done in less controlled environments, but they might better motivate participants to try their hardest because they feel more like real competition.
- Testing too often can give more detailed results about how fitness improves, but participants might get better at the tests just from practise, which can make it look like the training is more effective than it really is.
- Using multiple types of measurements together (like heart rate, how hard the exercise feels, and performance scores) can give a better overall picture despite limitations of each individual measure.
- Researchers might unconsciously influence results if they expect certain outcomes, so it’s important to have neutral people conduct the tests when possible.
- School research needs to be honest about what the methods can and cannot show, rather than claiming the results are more accurate than they really are.