Several years ago Collins and Hale (1997) commented on nonrigorous experimental designs and procedures which typified published research examining the psychophysiology of the imagery process. Conceptual, methodological, and analytical guidelines were offered to improve the quality of future research undertakings. While Slade, Landers, and Martin (2002) have followed some of these suggestions, their recent imagery study examining the “mirror hypothesis” and a theory-expectancy hypothesis with EMG recordings still appears to have some conceptual inconsistencies, methodological flaws, and analytical weaknesses that make their conclusions ambiguous. These concerns are identified, and more suggestions for improved designs are given, in another attempt to improve the quality of the scientific research undertaken in sport psychophysiology.
Dept. of Kinesiology, Penn State–Berks, Reading, PA 19610-6009
Dept of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan Univ., Alsager, ST7 2HL, U.K.
Dept. of PE & Sport Science, Chester College, Univ. of Liverpool, Chester, CH1 4BJ, U.K.
Dept of PE, Sport & Leisure Studies, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, U.K.