@article{SchadVasishth2022,
  author    = {Schad, Daniel and Vasishth, Shravan},
  title     = {The posterior probability of a null hypothesis given a statistically significant result},
  series = {The quantitative methods for psychology},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {The quantitative methods for psychology},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {University of Montreal, Department of Psychology},
  address   = {Montreal},
  issn      = {1913-4126},
  doi       = {10.20982/tqmp.18.2.p011},
  pages     = {130 -- 141},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {When researchers carry out a null hypothesis significance test, it is tempting to assume that a statistically significant result lowers Prob(H0), the probability of the null hypothesis being true. Technically, such a statement is meaningless for various reasons: e.g., the null hypothesis does not have a probability associated with it. However, it is possible to relax certain assumptions to compute the posterior probability Prob(H0) under repeated sampling. We show in a step-by-step guide that the intuitively appealing belief, that Prob(H0) is low when significant results have been obtained under repeated sampling, is in general incorrect and depends greatly on: (a) the prior probability of the null being true; (b) type-I error rate, (c) type-II error rate, and (d) replication of a result. Through step-by-step simulations using open-source code in the R System of Statistical Computing, we show that uncertainty about the null hypothesis being true often remains high despite a significant result. To help the reader develop intuitions about this common misconception, we provide a Shiny app (https://danielschad.shinyapps.io/probnull/). We expect that this tutorial will help researchers better understand and judge results from null hypothesis significance tests.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BenOthmanChaouachiChaouachietal.2019,
  author    = {Ben Othman, Aymen and Chaouachi, Anis and Chaouachi, Mehdi and Makhlouf, Issam and Farthing, Jonathan P. and Granacher, Urs and Behm, David George},
  title     = {Dominant and nondominant leg press training induce similar contralateral and ipsilateral limb training adaptations with children},
  series = {Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism},
  volume    = {44},
  journal   = {Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {NRC Research Press},
  address   = {Ottawa},
  issn      = {1715-5312},
  doi       = {10.1139/apnm-2018-0766},
  pages     = {973 -- 984},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Cross-education has been extensively investigated with adults. Adult studies report asymmetrical cross-education adaptations predominately after dominant limb training. The objective of the study was to examine unilateral leg press (LP) training of the dominant or nondominant leg on contralateral and ipsilateral strength and balance measures. Forty-two youth (10-13 years) were placed (random allocation) into a dominant (n = 15) or nondominant (n = 14) leg press training group or nontraining control (n = 13). Experimental groups trained 3 times per week for 8 weeks and were tested pre-/post-training for ipsilateral and contralateral 1-repetition maximum (RM) horizontal LP, maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of knee extensors (KE) and flexors (KF), countermovement jump (CMJ), triple hop test (THT), MVIC strength of elbow flexors (EF) and handgrip, as well as the stork and Y balance tests. Both dominant and nondominant LP training significantly (p < 0.05) increased both ipsilateral and contralateral lower body strength (LP 1RM (dominant: 59.6\%-81.8\%; nondominant: 59.5\%-96.3\%), KE MVIC (dominant: 12.4\%-18.3\%; nondominant: 8.6\%-18.6\%), KF MVIC (dominant: 7.9\%-22.3\%; nondominant: nonsignificant-3.8\%), and power (CMJ: dominant: 11.1\%-18.1\%; nondominant: 7.7\%-16.6\%)). The exception was that nondominant LP training demonstrated a nonsignificant change with the contralateral KF MVIC. Other significant improvements were with nondominant LP training on ipsilateral EF 1RM (6.2\%) and THT (9.6\%). There were no significant changes with EF and handgrip MVIC. The contralateral leg stork balance test was impaired following dominant LP training. KF MVIC exhibited the only significant relative post-training to pretraining (post-test/pre-test) ratio differences between dominant versus nondominant LP cross-education training effects. In conclusion, children exhibit symmetrical cross-education or global training adaptations with unilateral training of dominant or nondominant upper leg.},
  language  = {en}
}