INVITED COMMENTARY

IJSPT RESEARCH DESIGNS IN SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY

Phil Page, PhD, PT, ATC, CSCS, FACSM1

ABSTRACT
Research is designed to answer a question or to describe a phenomenon in a scientific process. Sports
physical therapists must understand the different research methods, types, and designs in order to imple-
ment evidence-based practice. The purpose of this article is to describe the most common research designs
used in sports physical therapy research and practice. Both experimental and non-experimental methods
will be discussed.
Key words: Research design, research methods, scientific process

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Phil Page, PhD, PT, ATC, LAT, CSCS, FACSM
1
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA Baton Rouge, Louisiana USA
drphilpage@gmail.com E-mail: ppage100@gmail.com

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 482
INTRODUCTION
Evidence-based practice requires that physical ther-
apists are able to analyze and interpret scientific
research. When performing or evaluating research
for clinical practice, sports physical therapists must
first be able to identify the appropriate study design.
Research begins by identifying a specific aim or pur-
pose; researchers should always attempt to use a
methodologically superior design when performing
a study. Research design is one of the most impor-
tant factors to understand because:
1. Research design provides validity to the study;
2. The design must be appropriate to answer the
research question; and
3. The design provides a level of evidence used in
making clinical decisions.
Validity
Research study designs must have appropriate valid-
ity, both internally and externally. Internal validity
refers to the design itself, while external validity
refers to the studys applicability in the real world.
While a study may have internal validity, it may not
have external validity; however, a study without
internal validity is not useful at all.
Most clinical research suffers from a conflict between
internal and external validity. Internally valid stud-
ies are well-controlled with appropriate designs to
ensure that changes in the dependent variable result
from manipulation of an independent variable. Well-
designed research provides controls for managing or
addressing extraneous variables that may influence
changes in the dependent variable. This is often
accomplished by ensuring a homogenous population;
however, clinical populations are rarely homogenous.
An internally-valid study with control of extraneous
variables may not represent a more heterogeneous clin-
ical population; therefore, clinicians should always con-
sider the conflict between internal and external validity
both when choosing a research design and when apply-
ing the results of research on order to make evidence-
based clinical decisions.
Furthermore, research can be basic or applied. Basic
science research is often done on animals or in a con-
trolled laboratory setting using tissue samples, for
example. Applied research involves humans, including
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 483
patient populations; therefore, applied research pro-
vides more clinical relevance and clinical application
(i.e., external validity) than basic science research.
One of the most important considerations in research
design for internal validity is to minimize bias. Bias
represents the intentional or unintentional favoring
of something in the research process. Within research
designs, there are 5 important features to consider
in establishing the validity of a study: sample, per-
spective, randomization, control, and blinding.
Sample size and representation is very important
for both internal and external validity. Sample size
is important for statistical power, but also increases
the representativeness of the target population.
Unfortunately, some studies use a convenience
sample, often consisting of college students, which
may not represent a typical clinical population.
Obviously, a representative clinical population can
provide a higher level of external validity than a
convenience sample.
In terms of perspective, a study can be prospective
(before the fact) or retrospective (after the fact). A
prospective study has more validity because of
more control of the variables at the beginning of
and throughout the study, whereas a retrospective
study has less control since it is performed after the
end of an event. A prospective design provides a
higher level of evidence to support cause-and-effect
relationships, while retrospective studies are often
associated with confounding variables and bias.
Random assignment to an experimental or control
group is performed to represent a normal distribu-
tion of the population. Randomization reduces
selection bias to ensure one group doesnt have an
advantage over the other. Sometimes groups, rather
than individual subjects, are randomly assigned to
an experimental or control group; this is referred
to as block randomization. Sample bias can also
occur when a convenience sample is used that
might not be representative of the target popula-
tion. This is often seen when healthy, college-aged
students are included, rather than a representative
sample of the population.
A control group helps ensure that changes in
the dependent variable are due to changes in the
 independent variable, and not due to chance. A
control group receives no intervention, while the
experimental group receives some type of inter-
vention. In some situations, a true control group is
not possible or ethical; therefore, quasi-experi-
mental designs are often used in clinical research
where the control group receives a standard treat-
ment. Sometimes, the experimental group can be
used as its own control by testing different con-
ditions over time.
Blinding (also known as masking) is performed to
minimize bias. Ideally, both the subjects and the
investigator should be blinded to group assignment
and intervention. For example, a double-blind study
is one in which the subjects are not aware if they are
receiving the experimental intervention or a pla-
cebo and at the same time, and the examiner is not
aware which intervention the subjects received.
While considering these 5 features, a large sample
size of patients, prospective, randomized, controlled,
double-blinded clinical outcome study would likely
provide the best design to assure very high internal
and external validity.
Design
Most research follows the scientific method. The
scientific method progresses through four steps:
1. Identification of the question or problem;
2. Formulation of a hypothesis (or hypotheses);
3. Collection of data; and
4. Analysis and interpretation of data.
Different research designs applying apply are used
to answer a question or address a problem. Different
authors provide different classifications of research
designs.1-4
Within the scientific method, there are 2 main clas-
sifications of research methodology: experimental
and non-experimental. Both employ systematic col-
lection of data. Experimental research is used to
determine cause-and-effect relationships, while non-
experimental is used to describe observations or
relationships in a systematic manner. Both experi-
mental and non-experimental research consist of
several types and designs. (Table 1)
Experimental Methods
Experimental methods follow the scientific method
in order to examine changes in one variable by
manipulating other variables to attempt to establish
cause-and-effect. The dependent variable is mea-
sured under controlled conditions while controlling
for confounding variables. It is important to remem-
ber that statistics do not establish cause-and-effect;
rather, the design of the study does. Experimental
statistics can only reject a null hypothesis and iden-
tify variance accounted for by the independent vari-
able. Thomas et al.4 provide three criteria to establish
cause-and-effect:
1. Cause must precede effect in time;
2. Cause and effect must be correlated with each
other; and

Table 1. Research Designs.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 484
Figure 1. Two-way repeated measures experimental design to determine interactions within and between groups.
3. Relationship cannot be explained by another
variable.
There are 3 elements of research to consider when
evaluating experimental designs: groups, measures,
and factors. Subjects in experimental research are gen-
erally classified into groups such as an experimental
(those receiving treatment) or control group. Techni-
cally speaking, however, groups refers to the treat-
ment of the data, not how the treatment is administered2.
Groups are sometimes called treatment arms in order
to denote subjects receiving different treatments. True
experimental designs generally use randomized assign-
ment to groups, while quasi-experimental research
may not.
Next, the order of measurements and treatments
should be considered. Time refers to the course of
the study from start to finish. Observations, or mea-
surements of the dependent variables, can be per-
formed one or several times throughout a study.
The term, repeated measures denotes any mea-
surement that is repeated on a group of subjects in
the study. Repeated measures are often used in
pseudo-experimental research when the subjects
act as their own control in one group, while true
experimental research can use repeated measure-
ments of the dependent variable as a single factor
(time).
Since experimental designs are used to identify
changes in a dependent variable by manipulating an
independent variable, factors are used. Factors are
essentially the independent variables. Individual
factors can also have several levels. Single-factor
designs are referred to as one-way designs with
one independent variable and any number of levels.
One-way designs may have multiple dependent
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 485
variables (measurements), but only one independent
variable (treatment). Studies involving more than
one independent variable are considered multi-fac-
torial and are referred to as two-way or three-way
(and so on) designs. Multi-factorial designs are used
to investigate interactions within and between differ-
ent variables. A mixed design factorial study
includes 2 more independent variables with one
repeated across all subjects and the other random-
ized to independent groups. Figure 1 is an example of
a 2-way repeated measures design including a true
control group.
Factorial designs are denoted with numbers repre-
senting the number of levels of each factor. A two-
way factorial (2 independent variables) with 2 levels
of each factor is designated by 2 2. The total
number of groups in a factorial design can be deter-
mined by multiplying the factors together; for example,
a 22 factorial has 4 groups while a 232 factorial
has 12. Table 2 describes the differences in factorial
designs using an example of 3 studies examining
strength gains of the biceps during exercise. Each
factor has multiple levels. In the 1-way study,
strength of the biceps is examined after performing
flexion or extension with standard isotonic resis-
tance. In the 2-way study, a 3-level factor is added by
comparing different types of resistance during the
same movements. In the 3-way study, 2 different
intensity levels are added to the design.
Statistical analysis of a factorial design begins by
determining a main effect, which is an overall effect
of a single independent variable on dependent vari-
ables. If a main effect is found, post-hoc analysis
examines the interaction between independent vari-
ables (factors) to identify the variance in the depen-
dent variable.
 Table 2. Examples of progressive factorial designs.
As described in Table 1 previously, there are 2 types
of experimental designs: true experimental and
quasi-experimental.
True Experimental Designs
True experimental designs are used to determine
cause-and-effect by manipulating an independent
variable and measuring its effect on a dependent
variable. These designs always have at least 2 groups
for comparison.
In a true experimental design, subjects are random-
ized into at least 2 independent, separate groups,
including an experimental and true control. This
provides the strongest internal validity to establish
a cause-and-effect relationship within a population.
A true control group consists of subjects that receive
no treatment while the experimental group receives
treatment. The randomized, controlled trial design
is the gold standard in experimental designs, but
may not be the best choice for every project.
Table 3 provides common true experimental designs
that include 2 independent, randomly assigned
groups and a true control group. Notation is often
used to illustrate research designs:
Quasi-Experimental Designs
Clinical researchers often find it difficult to use true
experimental designs with a true control because it
may be unethical and sometimes illegal to withhold
treatment within a patient population. In addition,
clinical trials are often affected by a conflict between
internal and external validity. Internal validity
requires rigorous control of variables; however, that
control does not support real-world generalizability
(external validity). As previously described, clinical
researchers must seek balance between internal and
external validity.
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 486
Quasi-experimental designs are those that do not
include a true control group or randomization of
subjects. While these types of designs may reduce
the internal validity of a study, they are often used
to maximize a studys external validity. Quasi-exper-
imental designs are used when true randomization
or a true control group is unethical or difficult. For
example, a pseudo-control group may include a
group of patients receiving traditional treatment
rather than a true control group receiving nothing.
Block-randomization or cluster grouping may also
be more practical when examining groups, rather
than individual randomization. Subjects are grouped
by similar variables (age, gender, etc) to help control
for extraneous factors that may influence differences
between groups. The block factor must be related to
dependent variable (i.e., the factor affecting response
to treatment).
A cross-over or counterbalanced design may also be
used in a quasi-experimental study. This design is
often used when only 2 levels of an independent vari-
able are repeated to control for order effects.3 A cross-
over study may require twice as long since both groups
must undergo the intervention at different times. Dur-
ing the cross-over, both groups usually go through a
washout period of no intervention to be sure pro-
longed effects are not a factor in the outcome.
Examples of quasi-experimental designs can include
both single and multiple groups (Table 4). Quasi-
experimental designs generally do not randomize
group assignment or use true control groups. (Note:
One-group pre-post test designs are sometimes clas-
sified as pre-experimental designs.)
Single-subject designs are also considered quasi-exper-
imental as they draw conclusions about the effects of
a treatment based on responses of single patients
Table 3. Common true experimental designs.

Table 4. Quasi-Experimental designs.

The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 487
under controlled conditions.3 These designs are used
when withholding treatment is considered unethical
or when random assignment is not possible or when it
is difficult to recruit subjects as is commonly seen in
rare diseases or conditions. Single subject designs have
2 essential elements: design phases and repeated
measures.3 Design phases include baseline and inter-
vention phases. The baseline measure serves as a
pseudo-control. Repeated measurement over time
(for example, during each treatment session) can
occur during the baseline and intervention phases.
Common single-subject designs are commonly denoted
by the letters A (baseline phases) and B (intervention
phases): A-B; A-B-A; and A-B-A-B. Other single-subject
designs include withdrawal, multiple baselines, alter-
nating treatment, multiple treatment, and interactive
design. For more detailed descriptions on single sub-
ject designs, see Portney and Watkins.3
Non-Experimental Methods
Studies involving non-experimental methods include
descriptive, exploratory, and analytic designs. These
designs do not infer cause-and-effect by manipulat-
ing variables; rather, they are designed to describe or
explain phenomena. Non-experimental designs help
provide an early understanding about clinical condi-
tions or situations, without a full clinical study
through systematic collection of data.
Descriptive Designs
Descriptive designs are used to describe populations
or phenomena, and can help identify groups and
variables for new research questions.3 Descriptive
designs can be prospective or retrospective, and may
use longitudinal or cross-sectional methods. Phe-
nomena can be evaluated in subjects either over a
period time (longitudinal studies) or through sam-
pling different age-grouped subjects (cross-sectional
studies). Descriptive research designs are used to
describe results of surveys, provide norms or descrip-
tions of populations, and to describe cases. Descrip-
tive designs generally focus on describing one group
of subjects, rather than comparing different groups.
Surveys. Surveys are one of the most common descrip-
tive designs.4 They can be in the form of question-
naires or interviews. The most important component
of an effective survey is to have an appropriate sample
that is representative of the population of interest.
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 488
There are generally 2 types of survey questions: open-
ended and closed-ended. Open-ended questions have
no fixed answer, while closed-ended questions have
definitive answers including rank, scale, or category.
Investigators should be careful not to lead answers of
subjects one way or another, and to keep true to the
objectives of the study. Surveys are limited by the
sample and the questions asked. External validity is
threatened, for example, if the sample was not repre-
sentative of the research question and design.
A special type of survey is the Delphi technique that
uses expert opinions to make decisions about prac-
tices, needs, and goals.4 The Delphi technique uses a
series of questionnaires in successive stages called
rounds. The first round of the survey focuses on
opinions of the respondents, and the second round
of questions is based on the results of the first round,
where respondents are asked to reconsider their
answers in context of others responses. Delphi sur-
veys are common in establishing expert guidelines
where consensus around an issue is needed.
Observational. A descriptive observational study
evaluates specific behaviors or variables in a specific
group of subjects. The frequency and duration of the
observations are noted by the researcher. An investi-
gator observing a classroom for specific behaviors
from students or teachers would use an observa-
tional design.
Normative. Normative research describes typical or
standard values of characteristics within a specific
population.3 These norms are usually determined
by averaging the values of large samples and provid-
ing an acceptable range of values. For example, gonio-
metric measures of joint range of motion are reported
with an accepted range of degrees, which may be
recorded as within normal limits. Samples for nor-
mative studies must be large, random, and represen-
tative of the population heterogeneity.3 The larger the
target population, the larger sample required to estab-
lish norms; however, sample sizes of at least 100 are
often used in normative research. Normative data is
extremely useful in clinical practice because it serves
as a basis for determining the need for an interven-
tion, as well as an expected outcome or goal.
Developmental. Developmental research helps des-
cribe the developmental change and the sequencing
 Table 5. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative designs (Adapted from Thomas et al4 and Carter et al2).
of human behavior over time.3 This type of research is
particularly useful in describing the natural course of
human development. For example, understanding the
normal developmental sequencing of motor skills can
be useful in both the evaluation and treatment of young
athletes. Developmental designs are classified by the
method used to collect data; they can be either cross-
sectional or longitudinal.
Case Designs. Case designs offer thoughtful descrip-
tions and analysis of clinical information;2 they
include case reports, case studies, and case series. A
case report is an in-depth understanding of a unique
patient, while a case study focuses on a unique situ-
ation. These cases may involve a series of patients
or situations, which is referred to as a case series
design. Case designs are often useful in developing
new hypotheses and contributing to theory and prac-
tice. They also provide a springboard for moving
toward more quasi-experimental or experimental
designs in order to investigate cause and effect.
Qualitative. Research measures can also be classified
as quantitative or quantitative. Quantitative measures
explain differences, determines causal relationships,
or describes relationships; these designs include those
previously discussed. Qualitative research, on the
other hand, emphasizes attempting to discern process
and meaning without measuring quantity. Qualitative
studies focus on analysis in trying to describe a
phenomenon. Qualitative research examines beliefs,
understanding, and attitudes through skillful inter-
view and content analysis.5 These designs are used to
describe specific situations, cultures, or everyday
activities. Table 5 provides a comparison between quali-
tative and quantitative designs.
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 489
Exploratory Designs
Exploratory designs establish relationships without
manipulating variables while using non-experimen-
tal methods. These designs include cohort studies,
case control studies, epidemiological research, cor-
relational studies, and methodological research.
Exploratory research usually involves comparison of
2 or more groups.
Cohort Studies. A cohort is a group of subjects
being studied. Cohort studies may evaluate single
groups or differences between specific groups. These
observations may be made in subjects one time, or
over periods of time, using either cross-sectional or
longitudinal methods.
In contrast to experimental designs, non-experimen-
tally designed cohort studies do not manipulate the
independent variable, and lack randomization and
blinding. A prospective analysis of differences in cohort
groups is similar to an experimental design, but the
independent variable is not manipulated. For example,
outcomes after 2 different surgeries in 2 different
groups can be followed without randomization of sub-
jects using a prospective cohort design.
Some authors2 have classified Outcomes Research as
a retrospective, non-experimental cohort design, where
differences in groups are evaluated after the fact with-
out random allocation to groups or manipulation of an
independent variable. This design would include chart
reviews examining outcomes of specific interventions.
Case Control Studies. Case control studies are sim-
ilar to cohort studies comparing groups of subjects
with a particular condition to a group without the
 Table 6. Measurement terminology used in epidemiological research.
condition. Both groups are observed over the same
period of time, therefore requiring a shorter time-
frame compared to cohort studies. Case control stud-
ies are better for investigations of rare disease or
conditions because the sample size required is less
than a cohort study. The control group (injury/dis-
ease-free) is generally matched to the injury/disease
group by confounding variables consistent in both
groups such as age, gender, and ethnicity.
Case control studies sometimes use odds ratios in
order to estimate the relative risk if a cohort study
would have been done.4 An odds ratio greater than 1
suggests an increased risk, while a ratio less than 1
suggests reduced risk.
Epidemiological Research. Studies that evaluate
the exposure, incidence rates, and risk factors for
disease, injury, or mortality are descriptive studies
of epidemiology. According to Thomas et al,4 epide-
miological studies evaluate naturally occurring dif-
ferences in a population. Epidemiological studies
are used to identify a variety of measures in popula-
tions (Table 6).
Relative risk, (RR) which is associated with expo-
sure and incidence rates. Portney and Watkins3 use a
contingency table (Table 7) to determine the rela-
tive risk and odds ratio. Usually, incidence rates are
compared between 2 groups by dividing the inci-
dence of one group by the other.
Using Table 7,
a / (a+ b) a/c
Relative Risk = Odds Ratio=
d / (c+d) b/d
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 490
Table 7. : Contingency Table to determine risk
(Adapted from Portney and Watkins3).
With these formulas, the null value is 1.0. A risk or
odds ratio less than 1.0 suggests reduced risk or odds,
while a value greater than 1.0 suggests increased
risk or odds. For example, if the risk is 1.5 in a group,
there is a 1.5 times greater risk of suffering an injury
in that group. Relative risk should be reported with
a confidence interval, typically 95%.
Epidemiological studies can also be used to test a
hypothesis of the effectiveness of an intervention on
on injury prevention by using incidence as a depen-
dent variable. These studies help link exposures and
outcomes with observations, and can include case
control and cohort studies mentioned previously.
Correlational Studies. Correlations studies examine
relationships among variables. Correlations are
expressed using the Pearsons r value that can range
from 1 to +1. A Pearsons r value of +1 indicates a
perfect linear correlation, noting the increase in one
variable is directly dependent on the other. In contrast,
an r value of 1 indicates a perfect inverse relation-
ship. An r value of 0 indicates that the variables are
independent of each other. The most important thing
to remember is that correlation does not infer causa-
tion; in other words, correlational studies cant be used
to establish cause-and-effect. In addition, 2 variables
 Table 8. Different types of validity in scientic research.
may have a high correlation (r>.80), but lack statistical
significance if the p-value is not sufficient. Finally, be
aware that correlational studies must have a represen-
tative sample in order to establish external validity.
Methodological. The usefulness of clinical research
and decision-making heavily depends on the valid-
ity and reliability of measurements.3 Methodological
research is used to develop and test measuring
instruments and methods used in practice and
research. Methodological studies are important
because they provide the reliability and validity of
other studies. First, the reliability of the rater (inter-
rater and intra-rater reliability) must be established
when administering a test in order to support the
accuracy of measurements. Inter-rater reliability
supports consistent measurements between differ-
ent raters, while intra-rater reliability supports con-
sistent measures for the same individual rater.
Reliability can also be established for instruments by
demonstrating consistent measurements over time.
Reliability is related to the ability to control error,
and thus associated with internal validity.
Methodological studies are also used to establish valid-
ity for a measurement, which may include clinical
diagnostic tests, performance batteries, or measure-
ment devices. Measurement validity establishes the
extent to which an instrument measures what it intends
to measure. Different types of validity can be mea-
sured, including face validity, content validity, crite-
rion-related validity and construct validity (Table 8).
Sports physical therapists may also be interested in
the sensitivity and specificity of clinical tests. Sensi-
tivity refers to the ability of a test to correctly identify
those with a condition, while specificity refers to the
ability to correctly identify those without the condi-
tion. Unfortunately, few clinical tests possess both
high sensitivity and specificity.6
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 491
Analytical Designs
Analytical research designs are not just a review or
summary, but a method of evaluating the existing
research to reach a conclusion. These designs pro-
vide a synthesis of the literature for empirical and
theoretical conclusions.4 Analytical designs explain
phenomena and analyze existing data using system-
atic reviews and meta-analysis techniques. In con-
trast to systematic reviews, meta-analyses include
statistical analysis of data.
Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews most com-
monly examine the effectiveness of interventions, but
may also examine the accuracy of diagnostic tools.3 Sys-
tematic reviews of randomized controlled trials provide
the highest level of evidence possible.7 Systematic
reviews should describe their methodology in detail,
including inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies
reviewed, study designs, and outcomes measures. In
addition, the method of literature search should be
detailed including databases, dates, and keywords used.
Meta-Analysis. Systematic reviews can be extended
into meta-analysis if multiple studies contain neces-
sary information and data. Meta-analysis techniques
are particularly useful when trying to analyze and
interpret smaller studies and studies with inconsis-
tent outcomes. Meta-analysis of randomized con-
trolled trials provides a high level of evidence, but
may suffer in quality from heterogeneous samples,
bias, outliers, and methodological differences.
Meta-analysis quantifies the results of various studies
into a standard metric that allows for statistical analy-
sis to calculate effect sizes. The effect size, calculated
by Cohens d value, is defined as a standardized
value of the relationship between two variables. Effect
size provides magnitude and direction of the effect of
a treatment, and is determined by the difference in
 Table 9. Levels of Evidence (Adapted from the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine7).
Table 10. Grades of Evidence (Adapted from the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine7).
means divided by the standard deviation (M / SD).
A Cohens d value of .2 is considered small; .5 is con-
sidered moderate, and .8 and greater is a large effect
size. Confidence intervals are then reported to pro-
vide an interval of certainty.
Levels of Evidence
Research designs are often viewed in a hierarchy of
evidence. These designs have been discussed in this
paper, but bear repeating in the context of evidence-
based practice. Levels of Evidence have been estab-
lished by the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine in
Oxford, England (Table 9) as well as other research
consortiums. Each level is based on controlling as
many factors (variables) as possible to confidently
make conclusions without bias, the highest of which
is cause-and-effect. In addition, grades of evidence
have been established based on the quality and num-
ber of various levels of evidence to make recom-
mendations in reviews and guidelines (Table 10).
Thus, a research publication could be described and
labeled using a combination of a level and a grade,
such as Level II-A or Level II-B.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is important for sports physical thera-
pists to understand different research designs not only
to support evidence-based practice, but also to contrib-
ute to the body of knowledge by using appropriate
The International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | Volume 7, Number 5 | October 2012 | Page 492
research designs. Clinicians should be aware of appro-
priate research design, validity, and levels of evidence
in order to make informed clinical decisions. This com-
mentary described the most common and relevant
experimental and non-experimental designs used and
encountered by sports physical therapists who contrib-
ute to and utilize evidence-based practice.
REFERENCES
1. Payton OD. Research: The validation of clinical
practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis; 1994.
2. Carter RE, Lubinsky J, Domholdt E. Rehabiltiation
research: principles and applications. 4th ed. St. Louis:
Elsevier; 2011.
3. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical
research: applications to practcie. 3rd ed. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.
4. Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. Research
methods in physical activity. 5th ed. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics; 2005.
5. Labuschange A. Qualitative research - airy fairy or
fundamental? The Qualitative Report 2003; http://
www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/labuschagne.html.
Accessed August 29, 2011.
6. Reiman MP, Manske RC. Functional testing in human
performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2009.
7. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine -Levels
of Evidence. 2009; http://www.cebm.net/index.
aspx?o=1025. Accessed August 28, 2011.