3.8 Review

Missing Data Reporting and Analysis in Motor Learning and Development: A Systematic Review of Past and Present Practices

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOTOR LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 109-128

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jmld.2020-0018

Keywords

bias; maximum likelihood; multiple imputation; power

Funding

  1. Summer Research Renewal Fellowship awarded through the College of Education at the Michigan State University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that there are shortcomings in reporting and analyzing missing data in motor learning and development studies, with some improvements but still needing enhancement. It emphasized the need for more attention on missing data analysis to ensure the validity of research.
Missing data incidents are common in experimental studies of motor learning and development. Inadequate handling of missing data may lead to serious problems, such as addition of bias, reduction in power, and so on. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the past (2007) and present (2017) practices used for reporting and analyzing missing data in motor learning and development. For this purpose, the authors reviewed 309 articles from five journals focusing on motor learning and development studies and published in 2007 and 2017. The authors carefully reviewed each article using a six-stage review process to assess the reporting and analyzing practices. Reporting of missing data along with reasons for their presence was consistently high across time, which slightly increased in 2017. Researchers predominantly used older methods (mainly deletion) for analysis, which only showed a small increase in the use of newer methods in 2017. While reporting practices were exemplary, missing data analysis calls for serious attention. Improvements in missing data handling may have the merit to address some of the major issues, such as underpowered studies, in motor learning and development.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available