CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Fitness
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Fitness Theory and Practice. CrossFit's rationale & foundations. Who is fit? What is fitness?

Thread Tools
Old 05-03-2013, 03:21 AM   #1
Andy Shirley
Member Andy Shirley is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Honoulu  HI
Posts: 1,552
Re: Medical Study: The Crossfit Participant Composite Survey

No mention of IRB approval, or academic contact info on survey front page. No options for "no response" or "prefer not to respond"

Seems odd.

You ask for age, gender, race, then ask specifically where I train(affiliate, city, state). That's where I stopped.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 06:23 PM   #2
Dan Douglas
Member Dan Douglas is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Miami  FL
Posts: 153
Re: Medical Study: The Crossfit Participant Composite Survey

Andy, now they will not get EVERY MEMBER of EVERY AFFILiATE that they asked for. Way to blow the whole thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 08:40 PM   #3
Frank E Morel
Member Frank E Morel is offline
Frank E Morel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Santa Rosa  CA
Posts: 2,328
Re: Medical Study: The Crossfit Participant Composite Survey

Originally Posted by Dan Douglas View Post
Andy, now they will not get EVERY MEMBER of EVERY AFFILiATE that they asked for. Way to blow the whole thing!
And your fine with providing your private information to anyone?
Like Andy stated , There is afair bit of missing information regarding this study.
If who is the overseer etc. This isn't a study, it's data mining.
Medical related studies are NOT handled In Clandestine fashion.
Sorry, if it smells like fish, Something is rotting.
Creating heaven on earth: one deadlift session at a time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 09:55 AM   #4
Adam Schulte
Member Adam Schulte is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Galloway  OH
Posts: 7
Re: Medical Study: The Crossfit Participant Composite Survey

Thank you for each of your comments. I am the study author, and would be happy to touch on each of the comments made.

The CrossFit Participant Composite Survey received IRB approval April 17th, 2013 through Doctors Hospital (Columbus OH) under proposal #13-0023 "The Rapidly Emerging Sport of CrossFit: Primary Care and Sports Medicine Considerations for a Growing Population of Novel Athletes"

To state that this is not a medical study is inaccurate. Any investigation that is of academic interest to the medical community or any of its subdivisions is, in fact, of significant worth. Furthermore, that this study received IRB approval provides substantial evidence in support of this claim. To say that it is “pure data mining” is inaccurate as well. Within academic medical institutions, questionnaire and survey format studies are utilized frequently, as they are simple in design, characteristically well-controlled, and are capable of amassing volumes of important correlative data that often serve as a springboard to follow-up studies. The rapid expansion of CrossFit in a relatively short amount of time has produced a large population of athletes that we know relatively little about, yet primary care and specialty providers are seeing increased numbers in their clinics and possibly providing misguided treatment/care because of their unfamiliarity with the sport, the programming, and/or the demands placed on the body. That was the impetus for creating this survey. An easy-to-access, brief, electronic questionnaire fashioned after a typical new patient packet that most (if not all) patients submit upon their first visit to a new practitioner is what stemmed from this need. However, whereas new patient packets delve deeper into family medical history, previous surgical history, social history, etc, the CrossFit Participant Composite Survey focuses more on a respondent’s CrossFit and previous athletic history, while still addressing many pertinent medical history points.

The purpose is to draw as many salient correlations between data points as possible with the intent to draw attention to areas that may warrant further investigation. For instance, let’s say that members from affiliates with a 200-300 member population and a 10:1 class-to-coach ratio have a 30% decreased rate of stated injury than members in classes of a 15:1 ratio or higher. If the findings were statistically significant, this would raise the question of whether there is an optimal class-to-coach ratio in preventing injury, and possibly incite further study in this area. This is just one of potentially dozens of important relationships that the CPCS is capable of establishing. Granted, there exist certain limitations within a survey study format, however the intent was NOT to provide definitive, conclusive evidence, but rather insight regarding this minimally studied group of athletes.

In answer to the issue of missing free text fields or limited answer choices, this was done intentionally for the purpose of streamlining statistical analysis. We anticipated hundreds, if not thousands of respondents, and had we included free text responses in each of the questions, it would result in a laborious process of screening through each response from every respondent, removing redundant or incorrect responses, and then reanalyzing. This would further delay the final write-up and submission of the article for publication consideration. As an example, in the injury section of the study there is the option of selecting which injury a respondent sustained as a result of athletic participation. Although the option of sprain/strain is listed, a respondent may also free text “torn elbow”. This could mean many things, from elbow dislocation, to collateral ligament tear, triceps tendon avulsion, etc. We don’t expect our respondents to have a flawless understanding of these medical conditions, however providing as inclusive-yet- selective a list of response options helps not only to guide respondents toward the correct choice, but also significantly reduces the analysis burden at the culmination of data acquisition. Additionally, the study was standardized to American sports and medication terminology. This was done considering the greatest density of CrossFit affiliates is located within the United States, and that the majority of the respondents would be of American origin. Again, to have reviewed, confirmed, and compiled a list of every sport in the world and include them within the answer choices would have markedly increased the analysis burden. International respondents are filtered out from the remainder of the study population and assessed separately given the disparity in answer choices.

Within the study, there is a study-specific contact email address listed multiple times should a respondent have any questions or need help understanding a question. This in substitution of an “academic email” was determined to be satisfactory by our institution’s IRB. Should any further issues arise that need to be addressed, all respondents are encouraged to use this correspondence as I do not check this message board frequently.

I hope this adequately addresses each of the above concerns, and please don’t hesitate to contact me should other questions surface.

-Dr. Adam Schulte, D.O.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CrossFit-centered medical study Adam Schulte Pukie's Bucket 1 05-08-2013 05:24 AM
CrossFit-centered medical study Ryan Hoegner Fitness 1 11-13-2012 02:42 AM
More medical evidence favoring CrossFit Rainer Hartmann Health and Medical Issues 1 06-10-2008 10:28 AM
Medical tests useful to crossfit Jason Berger Fitness 3 07-19-2005 05:06 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 PM.

CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.