Basic Statistics for the
Strength and Conditioning
Professional
J. Brian Church, PhD, CSCS
Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, Arkansas
SUMMARY
STATISTICS ARE AN OFTEN MIS-
UNDERSTOOD AND UNDERUSED
TOOL FOR THE STRENGTH AND
CONDITIONING PROFESSIONAL.
PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF
STATISTICAL TOOLS WILL HELP
BETTER UNDERSTAND DATA AND
MAKE MORE INFORMED EVALUA-
TIONS OF DATA, THUS MAXIMIZING
THE BENEFITS OF A TRAINING
PROGRAM.
INTRODUCTION
trength and conditioning profes-
S sionals use tools to enhance the
performance of the athletes with
which they work. For example, bar-
bells, dumbbells, resistance machines,
and medicine balls are routinely pre-
scribed to improve muscular perfor-
mance. Strength and conditioning
professionals also regularly test athletes
in order to gain an understanding of
the effectiveness of the training pro-
gram and the progress made. Testing
generates information, in numerical
form, known as data. As the amount
of data generated increases, the mean-
ing may be lost. Therefore, tools have
been developed to better understand
raw data so that better decisions about
training may be made. These tools for
interpreting and summarizing data are
known as statistics (4). The purpose of
this discussion is to demonstrate basic
statistical techniques that the strength
and conditioning professional may use
to improve their professional skills.
Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics are the simplest
class of statistical techniques strength
and conditioning professionals will use.
These techniques are useful for taking
large amounts of data, which are
difficult to interpret, and simply sum-
marizing that information in a manner
that makes it easier to interpret the
data and therefore make informed
decisions. Descriptive statistics dis-
cussed here will include measures of
central tendency and variability as well
as distributions and standard scores.
CENTRAL TENDENCY
One of the most common types of
descriptive statistics is known as meas-
ures of central tendency. As the term
indicates, these are techniques that
describe where the data tend to be
centered; that is, measures of central
tendency provide one score that rep-
resents all scores. The most common
measure of central tendency is known
as the mean (2). The mean is the arith-
metic average of all numbers and is
calculated by taking the sum of all
scores and then dividing by the num-
ber of scores. It is the ‘‘balance point’’ of
a distribution of scores.
Although commonly used, the mean
may not be appropriate in all situations
(5). For example, a few ‘‘unrepresenta-
tive’’ values in a group of scores may
adversely affect the interpretation of
the average. These unrepresentative
scores are known as outliers, and
collectively this group would be re-
ferred to as a skewed distribution
because of the lack of symmetry
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
created by the outliers. It would be
inappropriate to use the mean with
a skewed distribution because the
outliers would strongly affect the mean.
The extreme scores would ‘‘pull’’ the
mean closer to their values. An alter-
native measure of central tendency is
the median, or simply the middle score
of all scores. Fifty percent of scores are
above the median, and 50% of the
scores are below the median. The
median is the most appropriate mea-
sure of central tendency for skewed
distributions because it is not affected
by those extreme scores that are
characteristic of skewed distributions
in the way the mean is affected.
Consider the following small sample
of vertical jump scores measured in
centimeters:
45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 51, 55, 75, 76
The last two scores would be consid-
ered unrepresentative scores that are
significantly different from the rest of
the sample. Now compare the mean
and median scores of this sample. The
sum of all scores, 497, divided by the
number of scores, 9, results in a mean
score of 55.2. The median is obtained
by putting the scores in order from
lowest to highest and locating the
middle score. In this example the
median score is 51. Both are measures
of central tendency, but as one can see,
the mean is affected more by the
outliers than the median score. It
KEY WORDS:
descriptive statistics; evaluation;
strength and conditioning
51
Basic Statistics for the Strength and Conditioning Professional
should also be noted that in this
example there were an odd number
of values leaving a true middle score.
Samples with an even number of scores
results in a dilemma, because there are
actually two middle scores. The solu-
tion is to simply average the two
middle scores in a sample with an
even number of scores (3). This often
results in a median score that is not
actually one of the scores in the
sample. Other authors have recom-
mended that the median score in
a sample with an even number be
designated the larger of the two middle
scores (5).
The remaining measure of central
tendency is the mode, or the most
frequently occurring score (3). It is
appropriate to use the mode with
categorical data, that is, data that are
classified into groups. For example, one
might test a group of people on their
body mass index. Based on this value,
individuals may be put into groups:
underweight, normal weight, over-
weight, and obese. The mode would
be the category with the most fre-
quently occurring score.
VARIABILITY
Although a measure of central ten-
dency is useful for interpreting data, it
is just a single number that represents
all numbers. Variability refers to the
differences among scores, or how they
are distributed (4). Adding a measure
of variability to a measure of central
tendency provides additional informa-
tion about how all data are spread
around the measure of central ten-
dency. Suppose you were teaching two
fitness classes and each class had the
same average fitness. Knowing the
variability of fitness would also be
important information because it may
alter the manner the fitness class is
taught. In fact, it may be more difficult
to teach a fitness class with much
variability because of the large differ-
ences in fitness levels between the very
fit and the very unfit.
The simplest measure of variability is
the range. The range is the difference
between the highest and lowest scores.
52 VOLUME 30 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2008
It is limited in its usefulness by the fact
that it is affected by only two scores
(the highest and lowest) and says
nothing about the scores in between
those extremes (1). Again, a single
outlier would affect the range in
a drastic way and may be misleading.
The most commonly used measure of
variability is known as the standard
deviation. It is a number that provides
the average, or standard, distance
between each individual score and
the mean score. In relative terms,
a small standard deviation means that
all scores tend to be grouped closer to
the mean than a larger standard
deviation.
So in describing a set of data, one
should use both a measure of central
tendency and a measure of variability.
It would be appropriate in most
situations for the strength and condi-
tioning professional to use the mean
and the standard deviation together
(1). So, two scores are used to represent
many scores. The mean and the
standard deviation provide a ‘‘snap-
shot’’ of a large group of data, whose
size might prohibit interpretation with-
out the aid of a statistical tool. For
example, consider 1-RM bench press
data from a team of 30 athletes.
Examination of the raw data may be
difficult without some organization
and or using the statistical tools of
mean and standard deviation. If the
mean of the 30 athletes was 150
pounds and the standard deviation
Figure 1. A normal distribution.
was 10. It would be written as 150
lbs 6 10. So these two numbers are
sufficient in summarizing the average
value of the data and an average of how
the data is spread around the mean.
Contrast this example with another
team of athletes that had a mean bench
press 1-RM of 150 and a standard
deviation of 20 (150 lbs 6 20). This
would indicate to the strength and
conditioning professional that, although
the averages are the same, the first team
had a smaller standard deviation. It is
likely that the second team has, overall,
athletes with a stronger bench press
1-RM as well as athletes with weaker
1-RM. Thus, the values have a greater
spread or variability around the mean.
THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
When large amounts of data are
collected on a single variable and
a frequency distribution is created,
the distribution tends to take on
a characteristic shape. This distribution
is known as the normal distribution or
normal curve. This normal distribution
is best represented by a frequency
distribution where the data take the
characteristic bell shape (Figure 1). In
fact, this distribution is often called the
bell-shaped curve. Observation of this
figure should demonstrate that if a vari-
able such as height were measured,
most individuals would be grouped
near the mean with equal numbers
of individuals that are extremely tall
and extremely short. The curve is
symmetrical as a result of this relation-
ship. The symmetry is around the
highest point on the curve. In a normal
distribution, the highest point corre-
sponds to the mean, median, and
mode (1).
In addition, the normal curve has
specific characteristics related to its
standard deviation. By definition, one
standard deviation is plus or minus
approximately 34.1% of the scores
above and below the mean (5). In
other words approximately 68% of the
scores will be within plus or minus one
standard deviation of the mean. Sup-
pose a personal trainer measured
percent body fat on a large group of
male clients and it formed a normal
distribution with a mean of 22% and
a standard deviation of 4. This would
indicate that 68% of the individuals
measured have a percent body fat
between 18% (2224) and 26% (22 +
4). This relationship between the stan-
dard deviation and percentage is some-
times referred to as the 68% rule. In
addition, there are also 95% and 99.7%
rules for 2 and 3 standard deviations
respectively (5). For example, 95% of
the clients tested would have a percent
body fat between 14% (2228) and 30%
(22 + 8), and 99.7% of the clients would
have a percent body fat between 10%
(22 2 12) and 34% (22 + 12).
Z-SCORES
Raw scores may be obtained using
many different measures. It is some-
times difficult to make comparisons
using raw data. For example, compar-
ison of an individual’s vertical jump,
measured in centimeters, and leg press,
measured in pounds, can be problem-
atic because of the different units used
in those tests. Consider the following
example. An individual performs a ver-
tical jump of 55 cm and a 1-RM leg
press of 350 pounds. It would be
difficult to make useful comparisons
of the scores and in determining how
an individual scored in relation to
others who were tested. A useful
method, which allows a more accurate
comparison of scores, converts the raw
score into a standard score known as
a z-score. Standard scores are related to
standard deviations because a standard
score indicates how many standard
deviation units a score is from the
mean score (5). Data from any method
of measurement are converted into
a mean of zero and a standard de-
viation of one.
Raw scores can be converted to
z-scores using a simple formula:
z ¼ ðX
MÞ=SD
where X is the score of interest, M is
the mean of the sample, and SD is the
standard deviation of the sample.
Accurate comparisons require the
mean and standard deviation. The
athlete may want to know in which
test he performed better. Take the
following information: MVJ = 51 cm,
SDVJ = 2, MLP = 340 lbs., and SDLP =
10. Simple calculations reveal z-scores
of +2 and +1 for the vertical jump and
the leg press respectively. The vertical
jump’s larger z-score indicates a better
performance, in relation to others
tested, than the leg press. In addition,
recall that a single standard deviation
above the mean includes approxi-
mately 34% of the scores. Z-scores
that are positive indicate raw scores
that are above the mean (50% up to the
mean plus 34% up to +1 standard
deviation equals 84%). So, a z-score of
+1 indicated that the raw score was
better than 84% of the others who were
tested. In addition, a z-score of +2
corresponds to a raw score better than
approximately 97% of all scores (50%
up to the mean plus 34% up to +1
standard deviationd plus 13% up to +2
standard deviations). Raw scores
below the mean will produce negative
z-scores.
CONCLUSION
Strength and conditioning professio-
nals rely on numerical data to evaluate
how their clients or athletes are pro-
gressing, and how their training pro-
grams are matching the needs of the
athletes. Descriptive statistics should
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
be used regularly as a tool for the
practitioner to improve their profes-
sional practice. The use of formulas
and mathematics has been kept to
a minimum in this discussion. Com-
puters, with commonly available
spreadsheet software, can facilitate
the record keeping and are capable of
performing many statistical calcula-
tions. With minimal effort, strength
and conditioning professionals can use
these statistical tools to improve the
evaluation of data generated regularly,
thus, maximizing the benefit to the
athlete or client.j
J. Brian Church
is Assistant Pro-
fessor at Arkansas
State University,
Jonesboro,
Arkansas.
REFERENCES
1. Baumgartner, TA, Jackson, AS, Mahar, MT,
and Rowe, DA. Statistical tools in
evaluation. In: Measurement for Evaluation
in Physical Education and Exercise
Science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
pp. 39–58.
2. Harman, E, Garhammer, J, and Pandorf, C.
Administration, scoring, and interpretation of
selected tests. In: Essentials of Strength
Training and Conditioning. Baechle, TR and
Earle, RW, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2000. pp. 287–317.
3. Lomax, RG. Univariate population
parameters and sample statistics. In: An
Introduction to Statistical Concepts for
Education and Behavioral Sciences.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
2000. pp 42–55.
4. Sifft, JM. Utilizing descriptive statistics in
sport performance. Nat Strength Cond J 12:
38–41, 1990
5. Vincent, WJ. Measures of central tendency.
In: Statistics in Kinesiology, 3rd Edition.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
pp. 52–77.
53