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

The research question’s age range “17±1 years” is ambiguous and could exclude left‐handed variability. Refine to specify precise ages or separate age groups and explicitly state inclusion of left and right dominant handed participants.

The introduction effectively outlines reaction time’s importance in sports and neuromuscular coordination, providing clear context for the investigation.

Background paragraphs summarize multiple studies but lack critical synthesis or evaluation of methods. Deepen emphasis on how each source informs the current investigation’s rationale.

Independent and dependent variables are clearly identified with units, facilitating reproducibility of the investigation.

Random sampling of Year 13 students is a strength, reducing selection bias and ensuring homogeneity in age.

The procedure outlines consistent 10 s breaks but doesn’t address screen fatigue or visual strain. Include screen brightness and distance controls in ethical considerations.

The safety section addresses fatigue and anonymity but omits discussion of prolonged screen use risks. Expand ethical review to include ocular strain mitigation.

Assertions regarding neural pathway efficiency lack specific citations. When stating physiological mechanisms, link directly to peer‐reviewed findings and include precise bibliographic details.

The website’s ±10 ms device lag is noted, but no uncertainty propagation is applied to means or t-test. Apply error propagation formulas or bootstrap methods to quantify overall measurement uncertainty.

The list of controlled variables is comprehensive but lacks randomisation procedures to address practice-order effects. Incorporate counterbalancing or random order for hand testing.

Confounding variables list acknowledges gender imbalance but stops short of mitigation strategies. Suggest monitoring participant gender distribution and include as a factor in the analysis.

Materials list omits screen latency calibration. Recommend verifying device input lag independently to ensure accurate reaction time measurements.

Consider calculating an effect size (e.g., Cohen’s d) to quantify the magnitude of the dominant handed advantage, strengthening interpretation of practical significance.

The statement confuses p-values and test statistics. Correct phrasing: “p=0.0028<0.05, therefore reject H₀,” rather than “t-value is less than significance level.”

The rationale for using a paired t-test is well articulated, demonstrating appropriate methodological choice for within‐subject design.

Include the actual t-statistic value and degrees of freedom (e.g., t(9)=X.XX) in the analysis section to improve statistical transparency.

The strengths section effectively highlights the benefits of consistent conditions and paired design to reduce variability, reinforcing the study’s internal validity.

The description of practice‐order effects is correct, but the suggestion for randomisation lacks detail. Propose a specific counterbalancing method with equal sequences.

Conclusion effectively restates the main finding and links to neuromuscular coordination, offering concise closure to the report.

Future research recommendations note ethical constraints but lack alternative designs. Suggest remote data collection or simulation to explore fatigue effects ethically.

Conclusion omits effect size or confidence intervals, limiting insight into practical significance. Include these metrics to strengthen support.

The discussion on how hand dominance interacts with broader neuroscientific theories strengthens relevance, integrating your findings within the scientific context.

Several sources are cited by author name only (e.g., “Chudler”) without date or context. Adopt a uniform in‐text referencing system (e.g., APA) and include publication years.

The alternative hypothesis cites “ScienceDirect, n.d.” without author or date information. Provide full citation and describe why this source is relevant to the predicted effect.

The null hypothesis text would benefit from formal notation (e.g. H₀: μ_dominant – μ_nondom = 0) to improve clarity and align with statistical conventions.

The results table clearly displays means and standard deviations, aiding comparison between dominant and non‐dominant hands.

Participant identifiers in the table mix fonts and symbols, which hampers readability. Use plain numeric labels for clarity.

Figure 1 caption is truncated mid‐sentence. Provide a complete description of error bars and axis labels to ensure the graph is self‐explanatory.

URLs in references are broken across lines, risking incomplete retrieval. Ensure each hyperlink remains intact on one line.

Bibliography entries vary in format and lack consistent author–date ordering (e.g., n.d. entries). Adopt a standardized citation style (APA or MLA) throughout.