Jerry R. Thomas

Advancing Kinesiology Through Improved Peer Review

Peer review of scholarship is essential to journal quality, evidence, knowledge advancement, and application of that knowledge in any field. This commentary summarizes recent literature on issues related to peer-review quality and current review practice in kinesiology and provides recommendations to improve peer review in kinesiology journals. We reviewed the literature on the characteristics of peer review in scientific journals and describe the status of peer review in kinesiology journals. Although the majority of scholars and editors strongly support the peer-review process, systematic research in several disciplines has shown somewhat positive but mixed results for the efficacy of peer review in evaluating the quality of and improving research reports. Past recommendations for improvement have focused on agreement between reviewers, standards for evaluating quality, and clarification of the editorial team roles. Research on interventions, however, indicates that improving reviewer performance is difficult. The specific research on peer review in kinesiology is limited. Six recommendations to improve peer review are proposed: publishing clear evaluation standards, establishing collaborative evaluation procedures and editorial team roles, utilizing online submission data to help improve reviewer comments, creating author appeals procedures, protecting reviewer time commitments, and improving reviewer recognition. There is considerable variation in peer-review criteria and procedures in kinesiology, and implementing several reasonable improvements may advance knowledge development and the field of kinesiology.

The Public Face of Kinesiology in the 21st Century

Recent enrollment growth in kinesiology places it second among academic areas of study in higher education. This article addresses issues that have prompted that growth, will allow it to continue, and examines other likely changes in the field. A major factor in growth has been the value of kinesiology as a major for allied health professional programs such as physical therapy and occupational therapy. In general, this growth is good for the field but creates the need for added faculty and facilities, stressing the capacity of current doctoral programs in kinesiology. Questions also arise about the distribution of undergraduate majors with many more seeking allied health options rather than kinesiology’s traditional fields of fitness leadership and physical education teaching. Other topics addressed include the increasing use of lecturers rather than tenure/tenure-line faculty, large public versus smaller private universities, use of the kinesiology core (American Kinesiology Association), direction of kinesiology research (sport or health related), and the role of kinesiology in public health.

Developmental Gender Differences for Overhand Throwing in Aboriginal Australian Children

In a review of 46 meta-analyses of gender differences, overhand throwing had the largest gender difference favoring boys (ES > 3.0). Expectations for gender-specific performances may be less pronounced in female Australian Aborigines, because historical accounts state they threw for defense and hunting. Overhand throwing velocities and kinematics were recorded in 30 female and male Aboriginal Australian children 6-10 years old. Results indicated the Aboriginal girls and boys were more similar in horizontal ball velocities than U.S. girls and boys. Throwing kinematics between girls and boys were also more similar in Australian Aborigines than U.S. children. Aboriginal girls threw with greater velocities than U.S., German, Japanese, and Thai girls, while the boys were similar across cultures.

Is There a General Motor Program for Right Versus Left Hand Throwing in Children

The purpose of this study was to determine if a general motor program controlled some or all aspects of overhand throwing. Using a 12 camera Vicon motion analysis system to record data from body markers, a group of 30 Australian Aboriginal children 6-10 years of age threw with maximal effort into a large target area. Data were reduced and analyzed for numerous variables and correlations were calculated between dominant and non-dominant side variables that were deemed reliable. Results indicated that five variables showed significant dominant to non-dominant correlations. However, only two of the five were entered into both multiple regressions to predict horizontal ball velocity for the dominant vs. non-dominant sides. The variables entered suggested that more gross aspects of the movement (stride distance and pelvis flexion) were both correlated from dominant to non-dominant sides and predicted horizontal ball velocity. Thus, the general motor program does not appear to control the more complex and coordinated parts of the throwing motion.

Improved Data Reporting in RQES: From Volumes 49, 59, to 84

This commentary provides a review of changes in data reporting in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport from Volumes 49 and 59 to 84. Improvements were noted in that all articles reported means, standard deviations, and sample sizes, while most (87%) articles reported an estimate of effect size (ES). Additional reporting recommendations were made about ES for mean differences, use of appropriate estimates of variability, when to use a table or figure, use of multivariate analyses, and power analyses.

American Kinesiology Association: A National Effort to Promote Kinesiology

The American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education (AAKPE) and The American Kinesiology Association (AKA) should work together to help kinesiology thrive. Data are provided about kinesiology that reflects its visibility in PubMed and Google. Survey data from AKA show the rapid growth of the undergraduate major and graduate programs. In particular, growth in the undergraduate kinesiology major has reflected students who plan to pursue careers in allied health as well as traditional professions—fitness, teaching, athletic training. AKA and AAKPE can work effectively to help the field thrive given the very positive changes in enrollment as well as the value of regular physical activity in a healthy society.

Motor Development and Elementary Physical Education Are Partners

JOPERD • Volume 79 No. 7 • September 2008 D uring the past 30 years, the primary focus of pedagogy and motor development has diverged. In many cases researchers from the pedagogy of physical activity have focused on effective teaching (Rink & Hall, 2008), social issues (Solmon & Lee, 2008), and curriculum models (Kulinna, 2008). At the same time, experts in motor development have broadened their view of motor skills to extend across the entire lifespan, from birth through older adulthood (Haywood & Getchell, 2005). With this shift, many researchers in motor development have become less focused on school-age children. In addition, researchers moved away from describing the course of change among children to focusing on the factors responsible for driving the observed patterns of change (Thelen, 1995). As a result, motor development and pedagogy—once important partners informing each other to help elementary school children become more skilled and physically active—have grown apart into separate knowledge “silos.” However, pedagogy and motor development have the same common goal: contributing to physically active individuals of all ages. Motor development scholars likely assume that motor development is one of the foundations for physical education, especially elementary school physical education. Evidence supporting that assumption is found in the defi nition of developmentally appropriate physical education, that is, practices and content that are suitable for students’ age and individual capabilities (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1997). Pedagogues identify best practices in curriculum and instruction and promote evidence-based physical education programs. Students who are preparing to become physical educators take classes (for example, biomechanics, exercise physiology, and motor learning) that may include a developmental perspective, or they may take a course in motor development. The challenge is to connect the work being done in different silos so that students are taught best practices that Developmentally appropriate instruction requires knowledge of developmentally appropriate movement. —Part 2 Curriculum Alignment