Sports, exercise and health science (SEHS) IA Example: To what… | RevisionDojo

Loading document preview...

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

To what extent does a prior 5-minute warm-up activity, in comparison with a non-warm-up condition, influence accuracy (% correct) and speed (ms) in computer-based simple and choice reaction time tasks among students (male and females) aged 16-18?SL

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

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused and context-rich research question that clearly identifies the intervention, comparison, participants, and outcomes.
The student explained most of the key methodological choices well, including controls for location, timing, instructions, practice, and participant state.
The student's procedure is detailed enough that another researcher could follow the investigation with only minor uncertainty.
The student showed awareness of major threats to validity such as order effects, familiarization, and inconsistent warm-up intensity.

The fixed order creates a major practice effect that is not fully resolved in the design.
A few methodological details are still not explicit enough for complete replication, such as some task-response specifics and how incorrect trials were handled.
The warm-up intensity was not operationalised tightly enough for full consistency across participants.

Criteria B: Data analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student communicated the raw and processed data clearly with labels, units, and organized tables.
The student reduced the data appropriately into participant means, accuracy percentages, and group summaries.
The student included sensible attempts to deal with questionable values and showed awareness of uncertainty through standard deviations and error bars.
The student used a paired t-test appropriately for comparing the same participants across conditions.

The student's treatment of uncertainty is present but not fully integrated into the data handling, so the impact of measurement error is not always clear.
The exclusion rule is stated, but the number of excluded values and the justification for the cut-offs are not fully transparent.
Accuracy is part of the question, but it is not handled as fully as the speed data in the analysis.
The visual presentation and reporting could be more precise, especially when interpreting small differences.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

C.3Practical implications

Poor

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

Excellent

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

Excellent

Criteria Feedback

The student framed a focused and context-rich research question that clearly identifies the intervention, comparison, participants, and outcomes.
The student explained most of the key methodological choices well, including controls for location, timing, instructions, practice, and participant state.
The student's procedure is detailed enough that another researcher could follow the investigation with only minor uncertainty.
The student showed awareness of major threats to validity such as order effects, familiarization, and inconsistent warm-up intensity.

The fixed order creates a major practice effect that is not fully resolved in the design.
A few methodological details are still not explicit enough for complete replication, such as some task-response specifics and how incorrect trials were handled.
The warm-up intensity was not operationalised tightly enough for full consistency across participants.

Criteria B: Data analysis

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

B.1Communication of data

Good

B.2Consideration of uncertainties

Poor

B.3Processing quality

Good

Criteria Feedback

The student communicated the raw and processed data clearly with labels, units, and organized tables.
The student reduced the data appropriately into participant means, accuracy percentages, and group summaries.
The student included sensible attempts to deal with questionable values and showed awareness of uncertainty through standard deviations and error bars.
The student used a paired t-test appropriately for comparing the same participants across conditions.

The student's treatment of uncertainty is present but not fully integrated into the data handling, so the impact of measurement error is not always clear.
The exclusion rule is stated, but the number of excluded values and the justification for the cut-offs are not fully transparent.
Accuracy is part of the question, but it is not handled as fully as the speed data in the analysis.
The visual presentation and reporting could be more precise, especially when interpreting small differences.

Criteria C: Conclusion

4/6

Criteria StrandsPro

C.1Relevance and support

Good

C.2Scientific context comparison

Good

C.3Practical implications

Poor

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

Excellent

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.