Research Resources for Coaches, Media, and Facilities.
Evidence tools for athletes, coaches, researchers, journalists, partners, and institutions—organized by the job they need to do and built so the research can travel without losing its methods, magnitude, or limits.
Start with the Job. Choose the Evidence That Fits It.
The same research should not be packaged identically for every reader. Start with your role, then use the resource designed for the decision, publication, or conversation in front of you.
Understand the Result Before Applying It.
Learn how to read raw outcomes, p-values, confidence intervals, Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, study design, and transfer limits in practical language.
Inspect the Sources, Citations, and Data.
Use DOI records, reference-manager files, copy-ready citations, machine-readable outcomes, and the independent literature behind the statistical language.
Quote the Finding Without Enlarging the Claim.
Use verified facts, approved language, literature-backed effect-size context, and clear boundaries for acute, longitudinal, and Joint Ops™ statements.
Review the Portfolio and Request Support.
Use the evidence brief for methods and outcomes, then request a coach briefing, facility evidence pack, tactical evaluation, or research conversation.
Use the Evidence Without Losing the Context.
Each resource serves a different task. The Coach Guide teaches interpretation. The Evidence Brief summarizes the portfolio. The Media Fact Sheet supplies verified language and statistical context. The Claims Quick Guide turns the evidence boundaries into a publication preflight.
How to Read Research Like a Coach
A ten-question reading framework covering raw outcomes, p-values, confidence intervals, Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, study design, null findings, practical magnitude, and transfer limits.
Three-Study Evidence Brief
A concise portfolio summary with methods, raw results, p-values, effect sizes, athlete-friendly interpretation, limitations, DOI links, and approved public language.
Research Media Fact Sheet
Verified facts, study descriptions, quote-ready language, literature-backed effect-size context, citation formats, claim boundaries, contact fields, and Joint Ops™ evidence status.
Research Claims Quick Guide
A publication check covering supported and prohibited language, the acute power null result, population limits, effect-size wording, individual-response boundaries, and the Launch Pad® / Joint Ops™ distinction.
Download PDF →APA, BibTeX, RIS, EndNote, and Plain Text.
Use DOI links as the authoritative destination. Downloadable formats support reference managers, coaches, researchers, journalists, distributors, and institutional buyers.
BibTeX
Complete article entries with DOI, title, authors, year, journal, volume, issue, and pages or article number where available.
Download .bib →RIS / EndNote
Import-ready RIS and EndNote-tagged files for common citation managers.
APA Citations
Plain-text citations and DOI links for webpages, reports, presentations, emails, and media coverage.
Download .txt →Copy the formatted citation, then use the DOI button to verify the version of record.
Kidwell, J. A., Yamamoto, T., Hetherton, K. J., Truneh, N., Bright, J. J., Blatney, A. E., Goldman, P., Neufeld, E., & Dolezal, B. A. (2026). Acute effects of thoracic-spinal elevation via a novel bench press pad on sEMG and barbell kinetics in resistance-trained males. International Journal of Exercise Science, 19(1), 1003. https://doi.org/10.70252/IJES2026103
Goldman, P., Taylor, J., Yamamoto, T., Blatney, A. E., Sahni, T. K., Lechner, R. J., Benna, D. M., Bolton, M., Shatagopam, V., Chen, E., Bright, J., & Dolezal, B. A. (2025). Eccentrically overloaded bench press training: Augmenting strength gains via a novel bench press pad. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 4(4), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.55860/JCDL3612
Blatney, A. E., Kidwell, J. A., Yamamoto, T., Goldman, P., Hetherton, K. J., & Dolezal, B. A. (2026). Effects of an eight week training regimen with a novel bench press pad compared to a traditional bench on upper body strength and performance in collegiate American football players. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 5(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.55860/RNUB8627
Verified Values for Tables, Charts, and Analysis.
Use the structured files when the research needs to move into an analysis, chart, institutional review, content workflow, or claims-governance system.
Study Results CSV
Outcome-level rows with condition means, change values, p-values, effect-size type, effect-size value, units, sample, and protocol.
Download CSV →Research JSON
Study metadata, outcomes, limitations, DOI links, plain-language interpretation, evidence boundaries, and public-language rules.
Download JSON →Claims Matrix
Supported, qualified, not-measured, and never-public language mapped to the evidence source, population, outcome, and required disclosure.
Download Claims CSV →Independent Sources Behind the Statistical Language.
These sources support the explanations of p-values, Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, small-sample correction, and effect-size context used across the Research Hub. They are interpretation resources—not head-to-head product comparisons.
Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016
The American Statistical Association statement explains why a p-value does not measure the probability that a hypothesis is true, the probability that results occurred “by chance,” or the magnitude of an effect.
Open DOI →Lakens, 2013
A practical primer on calculating and reporting standardized effects, including important differences between independent-group and repeated-measures designs.
Open DOI →Hedges, 1981
Foundational work demonstrating small-sample bias in standardized mean-difference estimators and deriving a bias-corrected estimator.
Open DOI →Swinton et al., 2024
A meta-analysis of 295 studies, 535 groups, and 6,710 participants. The pooled intervention-only standardized mean difference was 0.55; after outlier screening, retained effects ranged from −0.83 to 4.7.
Open DOI →Hagstrom et al., 2020
A resistance-training meta-analysis in women reported Hedges’ g = 1.70 for upper-body strength and 1.40 for lower-body strength, with smaller estimates after publication-bias adjustment.
Open DOI →Makaruk et al., 2024
A systematic review and meta-analysis of resistance training and sport-specific performance among elite athletes, providing an adjacent performance-literature comparison.
Open DOI →Always pair the standardized effect with the raw group changes, sample, protocol, and study design. Do not translate g into “times better,” claim a universal rarity percentile, or call the values the largest ever reported.
Read the Full Effect-Size Explanation →Comparison guardrail: the cited sources use different populations, outcomes, comparators, study designs, and standardized-effect calculations. They provide scale and interpretive context; their values are not statistically interchangeable with the between-group Hedges’ g estimates in the AMM trials.
Quote the Result. Keep the Boundary.
Use the approved direction as a starting point, then keep the raw result, population, protocol, and product boundary attached.
| Use | Approved direction | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Portfolio | “Backed by three peer-reviewed university-affiliated studies evaluating The Launch Pad®.” | “Three independent studies” unless formal independence is substantiated. |
| P-values | “Several between-group outcomes were reported at p < .001, indicating strong incompatibility with the no-difference model under the study assumptions.” | “There is a 99.9% chance it works” or “less than a 0.1% chance the result was random.” |
| Effect size | “The longitudinal trials reported Hedges’ g values of 3.67–4.10, representing exceptionally large standardized group separation relative to conventional benchmarks and selected published exercise-science comparisons.” | “Four times more effective,” “the largest ever,” or an unsupported rarity percentile. |
| Four-week strength | “The Launch Pad group improved 18.4 kg versus 11.1 kg, a 7.3 kg—or approximately 16.1 lb—between-group advantage under the supervised program.” | “Every athlete gains 66% more strength.” |
| Eight-week outcomes | “All three tested between-group outcomes favored The Launch Pad group at p < .001: 1-RM strength, NFL-225 repetitions, and seated medicine-ball throw distance.” | “Proven to improve every measure of athletic performance.” |
| Acute mechanics | “Pectoralis activation, bar velocity, and bar displacement were significantly greater under the tested condition; concentric power did not reach statistical significance (p = .071).” | “All acute outcomes improved” or “clinically proven shoulder protection.” |
| Joint Ops™ | “Joint Ops™ is an integrated expression of AMM’s human-centered design thesis, with dedicated research in development.” | Applying Launch Pad® findings directly to Joint Ops™ or implying published Joint Ops™ outcomes. |
Need a Coach Briefing, Media Source, or Facility Evidence Pack?
Use one request pathway for interviews, study questions, coach education, facility review, military or tactical evaluation, distributor materials, research collaboration, or clarification before publication.
Source Trail
Kidwell et al. (2026); Goldman et al. (2025); Blatney et al. (2026).
Swinton et al. (2024); Hagstrom et al. (2020); Makaruk et al. (2024).
Study results are group averages from the published samples and protocols. Individual results vary. Statistical and effect-size sources support interpretation; they do not make the cited interventions directly comparable.