↓ Skip to main content

The what and how of video analysis research in rugby union: a critical review

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
The what and how of video analysis research in rugby union: a critical review
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40798-018-0142-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steve den Hollander, Ben Jones, Michael Lambert, Sharief Hendricks

Abstract

Video analysis is a common tool used in rugby union research to describe match performance. Studies using video analysis range from broad statistical studies of commercial databases to in-depth case-studies of specific match events. The range of types of studies using video analysis in rugby union, and how different studies apply the methodology, can make it difficult to compare the results of studies and translate the findings to a real-world setting. In attempt to consolidate the information on video analysis in rugby, a critical review of the literature was performed. Ninety-two studies were identified. The studies were categorised based on the outcome of the study and the type of research question, sub-categorised as 'what' and 'how' studies. Each study was reviewed using a number of questions related to the application of video analysis in research. There was a large range in the sample sizes of the studies reviewed, with some of the studies being under-powered. Concerns were raised of the generalisability of some of the samples. One hundred percent of 'how' studies included at least one contextual variables in their analyses, with 86% of 'how' studies including two or more contextual variables. These findings show that the majority of studies describing how events occur in matches attempted to provide context to their findings. The majority of studies (93%) provided practical applications for their findings. The review raised concerns about the usefulness of the some of the findings to coaches and practitioners. To facilitate the transfer and adoption of research findings into practice, the authors recommend that the results of 'what' studies inform the research questions of 'how' studies, and the findings of 'how' studies provide the practical applications for coaches and practitioners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 40 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 41 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 40 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,229,709
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#178
of 481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,613
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.