Hi everyone,
Michael (Dr. Rosenblat) just posted a video summary of this study
And a summary article posted to his website
Stephen Seiler just posted about it on twitter
Thanks again to everyone who participated as a subject, and big thanks to @Nate_Pearson and Corey for their help setting things up on the back end.
I think the biggest takeaway for us was learning the many logistical challenges to setting up a remote randomised study with enough scientific rigour to control as many variables as possible, but maintain a high ecological validity.
The challenge we saw and ultimately the biggest limitation to this study was a high subject drop-out rate. We received very good feedback from some of you who did and did not complete the study, but I’d be interested in hearing from anyone willing to share here (or private DM me) how do you think we can improve the subject participation experience for next time?
If you participated, whether you completed the study or not, what were some of the hurdles you encountered? And any advice for us for how to overcome those hurdles?
Would you be interested in participating in future virtual training research? Under what conditions? (eg. only outside of my competitive season; only if I got individual feedback that I could use in my training; only if I could perform the training sessions outside, etc.)
Also happy to discuss anything else. This is crowdsourced science! The best way to improve the process is by getting more input from you the subject-stakeholders.
Jem