Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) IA Example: How does… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

IB Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) HL Internal Assessment Example

How does mental toughness, measured by the Sports Mental Toughness Questionnaire (SMTQ), affect the difference between perceived exertion (RPE, OMNI Scale) and physiological exertion (increase in heart rate, BPM, ±4) of student athletes aged 12-13 during a 5 minute treadmill incline test?HL

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Excellent

A.3Reproducibility of methodology

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student chose a focused research question with a clear population, variables, and measurement tools.
The student grounded the investigation in relevant theory and explained why the topic matters in this sporting context.
The student gave thoughtful methodological justification for participant selection, controls, ethics, and safety.
The student's method is structured in a way that mostly allows another researcher to follow what they did.

The wording of the question implies causation even though the design is correlational.
A few procedural details are still too vague for exact replication, especially the incline settings and some test conditions.
One or two method references are inconsistent, which makes the procedure slightly harder to follow precisely.

Criteria B: Data analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their data and processing in a clear sequence that is easy to follow.
The student's calculations are transparent, and they show enough working for the reader to trace how the processed values were obtained.
The student includes appropriate tables, labels, a graph, and a fitted trendline, which makes the relationship between variables understandable.
The student makes a genuine attempt to account for uncertainty and variability rather than ignoring them.

The uncertainty treatment is incomplete because not all relevant measurements are propagated through the final derived value.
The heart-rate-derived exertion measure is not fully justified as a direct equivalent of perceived exertion.
Some interpretation of variability goes beyond what the data can securely support, especially when relating spread to the strength of the relationship.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

C.3Practical implications

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Evaluation

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Weaknesses and limitations

Good

D.2Improvements

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Loading scores...

Official IB Result

IB Grade: 6

Criteria A: Research design

5/6

Criteria StrandsPro

A.1Research question context

Excellent

A.2Methodological considerations

Excellent

A.3Reproducibility of methodology

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student chose a focused research question with a clear population, variables, and measurement tools.
The student grounded the investigation in relevant theory and explained why the topic matters in this sporting context.
The student gave thoughtful methodological justification for participant selection, controls, ethics, and safety.
The student's method is structured in a way that mostly allows another researcher to follow what they did.

The wording of the question implies causation even though the design is correlational.
A few procedural details are still too vague for exact replication, especially the incline settings and some test conditions.
One or two method references are inconsistent, which makes the procedure slightly harder to follow precisely.

Criteria B: Data analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data

Excellent

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Moderate

B.3Processing quality

Moderate

Criteria Feedback

The student presents their data and processing in a clear sequence that is easy to follow.
The student's calculations are transparent, and they show enough working for the reader to trace how the processed values were obtained.
The student includes appropriate tables, labels, a graph, and a fitted trendline, which makes the relationship between variables understandable.
The student makes a genuine attempt to account for uncertainty and variability rather than ignoring them.

The uncertainty treatment is incomplete because not all relevant measurements are propagated through the final derived value.
The heart-rate-derived exertion measure is not fully justified as a direct equivalent of perceived exertion.
Some interpretation of variability goes beyond what the data can securely support, especially when relating spread to the strength of the relationship.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Relevance and support

Moderate

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

C.3Practical implications

Good

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Criteria D: Evaluation

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

D.1Weaknesses and limitations

Good

D.2Improvements

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.