Sei sulla pagina 1di 54

Buiteweg Costanzo 1

Introduction
Fifty-two thousand, that is the estimated number of how many deaths that occur
annually due to concussions according to the National Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Association (Concussion Statistics). While approximately fifty-two thousand deaths
occur every year, the number doubles for the amount of people who suffer from longterm mental disabilities resulting from concussions. This includes needing help with
normal day functioning, and containing abnormal brain activity.
About 75% of those deaths occur in contact sports. The two most popular contact
sports where concussions occur are American football and soccer. A concussion is formed
in the brain when a violent hit the head, neck, or upper body occurs. While concussions
are mentioned more frequently in American football, concussions occur more frequently
in soccer than in any other sport. No one person can explain why this is so, however, it is
thought that they occur more in soccer due to the more aggressive contact and less
protective gear. The most common way players receive a concussion in soccer is when a
player either heads the ball in play or collides with another player.

Buiteweg Costanzo 2

Figure 1. Soccer Headgear (Frei)


As the number of concussions started to increase throughout the years so did the
awareness and need for protection. Soccer headgear started to make an appearance in the
public in the 1930s, first only goal keepers were ones to wear the headgear then field
players. As headgear became more popular, the American Society for Testing and
Materials set a standard product performance for soccer headgear in 2006. This addresses
the specific materials needed, and banned, in the use of headgear. This also limits any
alternative purposes for the headgear besides protection against the soccer ball. There are
two types of soccer headgear that are used by players today (Figure 1). There is the 360
degree protection, which covers the entire skull, with the exception of the players face
and neck on the left hand side. The second one, the more popular and more widely worn,
is the head band version of the headgear on the right hand side.
When a concussion occurs, a series of steps is recommended to ensure that the
athlete can return to normal play activity. St. Johns Hospital has a standard PostConcussion Education Sheet that has the steps to take to return to play. Michigan State
Law, as of June 2013, makes it mandatory for any athletic trainer to give the Return to
Play Protocol to any player who shows any symptoms of a concussion (DeFour). These

Buiteweg Costanzo 3
steps include a mandatory checkup with either a doctor or athletic trainer to review the
player after each step of the protocol. This protocol is used nationally and is mandatory
for any sort of head injury. While this is a mandatory protocol, it is not always followed
correctly. The most common mistake in this protocol is that the players are given a
premature medical clearance to return back to play.
This common mistake occurs when an athlete purposely gives false reports on
their recovery following a head injury. A concussion can only be accurately called a
concussion when the players confirmation on how they feel is honestly reported, and
then later on confirmed with a MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Figure 2 is a survey
typically given to players and athletes to gage how they are feeling after receiving a blow
to the head. The main way to reduce the amount of concussion and second impact
concussions is by obtaining a 100% honest response from the injured athlete. However,
the fear of being informed that they would have to delay their return to competition, or
worse, cease competing altogether, increases the likelihood that the athlete will provide a
false report on how they are feeling.

Figure 2. Post-Concussion Survey (Post-Concussion Symptom Survey)

Buiteweg Costanzo 4
In an experiment done by the McGill Sport Medicine Clinic, 320 football players
and 200 soccer players were questioned and studied before and after their sport practices
or games (Delaney et al. 1-13). The experiment was performed by asking the athletes to
complete a survey before and after their sport activity on related concussion symptoms.
(See Figure 2. below) In regards to the group of football players who responded to the
survey, 70.4% of them had previously experienced concussion symptoms in the previous
year. Likewise, 62.7% of all of the soccer players responding to the survey indicated they
had previously experienced concussion symptoms in the previous year. Of these players,
approximately 82% for both football and soccer had received two or more concussions.
One of the most alarming facts to come from this survey was the response from players
who experienced concussion symptoms on a daily basis when performing in their
activity: 27.6% of the football players and 18.8% of the soccer players. Tight ends and
line backers were most likely to experience concussions in football while goalies were
more likely to experience concussions in soccer. Another variable that was shocking was
that in soccer, females were more likely to receive a concussion versus male soccer
players. This experiment done by the McGill Sport Medicine Clinic helps in the
understanding about how serious concussions truly are and how likely they are to happen
again.
In this experiment the maximum force that is read by the force plate, when the
ball makes contact with the force plate, was found. Force is measured in Newtons,
named after its discoverer, which is also equal to the mass of the object times the
acceleration. Force is the push or pull upon an object resulting from the objects
interaction with another object. There are two types of forces: one is a contact and the

Buiteweg Costanzo 5
other is a force at a distance which is usually the normal force of gravity. The force
intended for this experiment is the contact force. This is the point of contact between two
objects or the point of contact between the force plate and soccer ball. Also being tested
are three different types of foam that are used in headgear; Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam,
Polyurethane foam, and Polyethylene foam. The foams are to reduce the amount of force
that the force plate will intake. Thus reducing the force will reduce the acceleration.
When the acceleration is reduced the chances of a concussion occurring minimizes as
well.

Buiteweg Costanzo 6
Review of Literature
Concussions form when a violent blow hits the head, neck, or upper body. The
brain has the consistency of gelatin which means it can be easily hurt when violently
shaken. When the blow occurs, the cerebrospinal fluid that surrounds the brain is not
strong enough to hold it in place and the brain hits the inner walls of the skull. This can
cause internal bleeding which causes drowsiness or confusion.

Figure 3. Diagram of the Brain during a Concussion (Hoban)


Figure 3 shows how the brain reacts when a force acts upon it from the forehead
and frontal lobe. When the head hits any surface with a great amount of force the brain
will jar and shift in that direction (Hoban). Jarring is an action where a painful and
damaging shock is sent through the specific body part. The section of the brain that was
affected will then swell and even in some cases start to bleed. This can lead to severe
migraines and dizziness. The next step is the possibility of there being a concussion. If
the concussion is not treated correctly there can be long lasting effects. Only four months
after a concussion does the brain start to show normality, but even then the brain will
always show signs of abnormality. One abnormality is that the location of the fluid
around the brain cells is displaced due to its response to the brain damage (Phend). The
more serious cases of lifelong lasting concussion effects include loss of memory, normal
physical and cognitive functioning, and in the most severe cases is mental retardation.

Buiteweg Costanzo 7
A concussion can become fatal if not treated quickly; this is why people who
suffer these types of blows need to be monitored afterwards. Medical professionals
always recommend wearing head protection while performing recreational activities like
soccer or football. This allows a hit to the head to have less of a chance of becoming
serious. Playing sports is just one of many ways where concussions occur
(Concussion). Additional examples of how concussions can occur include car
accidents, hitting the head on the floor if someone trips, or being a soldier in combat.
No one is one-hundred percent positive how much force causes a concussion, but
head injury expert Kim Gorgens, a neuropsychologist at the University of Denver, said
that concussions deliver a force with an acceleration of 931 meters per second squared
(m/s2), or 94.94 gs, to the human body upon the impact (Gorgens). Brain injuries can
start to occur at 98 m/s2, or 9.99 gs, according to Gorgens as well. Some examples would
be internal bleeding, mild swelling, or in worse scenarios permanent brain damage. For
example, in a normal boxing match 49 to 98 m/s2 can be achieved just by the force of an
opponents punch to the head. This was just one force that the punch emitted; not taken
into effect was the angular acceleration and the snap back of the brain upon impact.
The reason for the snap back of the brain can be explained by Newtons laws of
motion. The first law states that a body in motion will remain in motion until an
unbalanced force acts upon it. In a real life setting the first law of motion is represented
when the soccer ball first comes into contact with a players head. After the head makes
contact with the soccer ball the skull will stop moving forward. This is not the case for
the brain. The brain will continue to move forward due to inertia, only then coming to a
stop once the brain makes contact with the inside wall of the skull or all by itself if there

Buiteweg Costanzo 8
is not enough force. The second law of motion states that an unbalanced force causes an
object to accelerate. Here, when a high speed soccer ball makes contact with a players
head the ball will not only change direction but its speed will change due to a loss of its
original momentum. The third law of motion says that for every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction. When the soccer ball and players head make contact, the ball and
head will go in opposite reactions. While it appears that there was more a reaction with
the soccer ball as it would be propelled in the opposite direction, the response to the
collision will be equal in both directions. The head will move backwards and the ball will
move forward, or in the direction the ball was directed with the head. These three laws of
motion show that when a force is applied to the head it causes an acceleration of the brain
to happen within the skull.
Soccer head gear is usually made from three different types of foams. The first
foam is Polyurethane foam, which is an open-cell foam. An open-cell foam is when the
micro sized holes or spaces inside the foam share walls between each other and these
types of foam tend to be lighter than others, this also creates the elastic rebound that most
foams contain. Polyurethane foam is made of raw liquid polyurethane and two chemicals
that are heated and then mixed together. These chemicals are polyol, a complex alcohol,
and diisocyanate, a petroleum byproduct that reacts strongly with alcohol (Albers). Then
the mixture is rolled into large sheets where it is then sprayed down with water. When the
water seeps into the mixture heating lamps dry out the mixture and the water expands to
form numerous amounts of microscopic holes with the foam. The final product resembles
a spongy material that will go into different products such as bedding, furniture stuffing,
or soccer headgear.

Buiteweg Costanzo 9
The second foam is Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam. This is a closed-cell foam that
is the second type of material that is used in soccer head gear. Closed-cell foam is formed
in a similar way to the open cell foam built. What is different about a closed-cell foam is
that when the expanding process occurs the microscopic sized holes no longer share
walls, they are individually their own compartment. Due to this factor, closed cell foams
tend to be heavier and there is little to no elastic rebound. This foam is made by the
heating and mixing process of ethylene and vinyl acetate. Then the mixture is rolled into
large sheets where it is then sprayed down with a water-alcohol combination (Peterson
and Peterson). When the water-alcohol combination seeps into the mixture heating lamps
are activated to dry out the mixture and the water-alcohol combination expands to form
numerous amounts of microscopic holes within the foam. Due to the fact that in closedcell foam the holes within the foam do not share walls this type of foam does not
resemble a spongy material. Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam can be found in orthopedic
insoles, camping bedrolls, and soccer head gear.
The third foam is Polyethylene foam. This is also a closed-cell foam as well and is
the third material that a majority of soccer head gear is composed of. To produce
Polyethylene the polymerization of ethylene and a plastic must occur. Polymerization is
the process when small molecules combine chemically to create strong and large
chainlike molecules. It is important that when combining molecules that they will create
unique characteristics that may not always provide the acquired specimen (Anissimov
and Foster). The same process is used to create the small sized holes within the foam as
above with the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam. Polyethylene foam can be found in thermal

Buiteweg Costanzo 10
insulation, furniture stuffing, and soccer headgear. Polyethylene is also one of the most
common plastics used within a variety of items.
Between all three of these foams it was predicted that the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
foam would provide the most protection when reducing the risk of a concussion. This
foam is also the most frequently used foam in the production of soccer head gear. It is
determined that it would be the best foam to use due to the closed-cell structure and the
chemical bonding of ethylene and vinyl acetate. The closed cell structure provides the
least amount of elastic rebound and can absorb more force. The chemical bonding
between ethylene and vinyl acetate causes the foam to have a high stress resistance, is
water proof, and has a tolerance to all temperatures. For these reasons the Ethylene Vinyl
Acetate foam was believed to be the best foam to be used in soccer head gear.
In an experiment done by Michigan Engineerings Biomechanics Research Lab,
the first initial hit between two football helmets was measured. This experiment was
conducted by attaching sensors around the inside and outside of the two helmets and then
attached to manikins that would respond as a real human would. While one helmet was
stationary at the bottom of a drop-tower the other helmet was dropped from a set height,
this was to keep the trials constant so there would be no varying data results (Moore).
They recorded the first force that was measured by the sensors. One thing to note was
that the stationary helmet was positioned at different angles to replicate how a player hits
with their head in different locations.
Michigans experiment while dealing with football helmets can provide insight to
the degree of protection that all head gears can provide. Football helmets are made with a

Buiteweg Costanzo 11
hard outer casing usually composed of a hard plastic. Soccer head gear is made out of a
softer foam material. The different angles that the helmet was positioned at helped
provide insight, as different areas and angles of the helmet provided different force
readings. Soccer head gears do not fully protect a players head, but only protects where
the soccer ball is most likely to make contact. If the soccer ball hits the head gear on the
edge there will be a different force reading than there would be if the ball hit the center of
the head gear or not at all. This can provide a wide range of data results that demonstrates
how much variation there can be when recording the data.

Buiteweg Costanzo 12

Problem Statement
Problem Statement:
Does using head protection while playing soccer affect the outcome of a
concussion and if yes, then what type of foam is best used to protect the brain from
damage?
Hypothesis:
If the foam head protection does make a difference then the best type of foam for
the head gear will be the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA) foam.
Data Measured:
There were three types of foam used in this experiment to represent the different
types of headgear used in the sport of soccer. The foam used was the independent
variable and the amount of force measured, in Newtons, was the dependent variable.
There were 30 trials for each type of foam used and a set of 30 trials with no foam, for a
total of 120 trials. An ANOVA test was conducted to compare the means of the trials for
each type of foam with the trials done with no foam. If it was found that two means were
extremely close so this resulted in the researchers conducting a two-sample t test. This
was used on those groups to find if they are significantly different. The results of this test
helped conclude whether or not the hypothesis, that the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam
produced the least amount of force emitted by the soccer ball, was accepted or rejected.

Buiteweg Costanzo 13

Experimental Design
Materials:

Buiteweg Costanzo 14
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Foam 22.7cm x 29.9cm x 1.3cm
Polyurethane Foam 22.7cm x 29.9cm x 1.3cm
Polyethylene Foam 22.7cm x 29.9cm x 1.3cm
Size 5 Soccer Ball (polyurethane)
Vernier Force plate (with handles)
JUG Soccer Machine
Meter stick
Air Pump
Pressure Gauge
Stand (Appendix A)
Roll of masking tape (3cm thick)
Vernier LabQuest
TI-Nspire CX Calculator
Procedure:
1.

Set up force plate on the stand. (Appendix A)

2.

Connect the LabQuest to the force plate.

3.

Use the calculators random integer function to randomize the order of the type of
foam on the plate for the trials. The three types of foams and the one set without
foam have 30 trials each. Separate the 30 trials into sets of 5 and rotate the type of
foam used for every 5 trials done. (Appendix B)

4.

Set up the JUG Soccer Machine so that the soccer balls will hit the center of the
force plate every trial. (Appendix C)

5.

Check the pressure with the PSI reader of the soccer ball every 10 trials to
maintain a constant pressure. If the pressure is not the standard pressure, 10.5 psi,
use the air pump to change the pressure of the soccer ball.

6.

Place the soccer ball into the JUG Soccer Machine. The ball should automatically
shoot off at the force plate. See Appendix B if Jug Soccer Machine is not
responding correctly.

7.

To determine which type of trial will go first see Appendix C. Secure the first type
of foam with tape over the force plate. Place the tape along the four sides of the
foam so they connect to the plate.

8.

Launch the soccer ball and record the maximum force that is emitted on the force
plate.

9.

Allow one minute of waiting between each trial for the JUG to reach the correct
velocity. This allows all trials to be constant. Repeat steps 7 and 8 with the other
types of trials until all 120 trials are completed.

Buiteweg Costanzo 15
Diagram:

Figure 4. Diagram of Set-Up


Figure 4 above shows the set-up of the experimental design. The soccer ball was
launched from the JUG and sent toward the force plate. The force plate was then hooked
up to the Logger Pro to measure the force the ball exerts on the plate.

Figure 5. Photo of Stet-Up


Figure 5 shows the set-up of the experimental design. Like figure 4 this figure is a
real-life photo of how the experiment was set-up. Not shown is the LabQuest witch is
placed on the cart next to the force plate.

Data and Observations

Buiteweg Costanzo 16

Foam
Force Plate
and Stand

Soccerball

Soccer JUG
Figure 6. Experiment in Progress
Figure 6 shows the experiment in progress when the trials were conducted. Take
into account the figure above does not show the speed the soccer JUG is set at or how to
properly run the soccer JUG. The final progress of the experiment would be the soccer
ball making contact with the force plate. Also, the picture on the right was taken during a
different trial, therefore having foam on the force plate in this picture. Not shown in the
figure above is the LabQuest that was attached to the force plate.

Buiteweg Costanzo 17

Figure 7. LabQuest Graph


Figure 7 shows the data collected for the sample trial. The maximum force or the
highest spike in the data is what was used for data collection. This was found by
highlighting the area and finding the maximum point.

Buiteweg Costanzo 18
Table 1
No Foam Data
Trial Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Type of Foam

None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Average Force

Max Force
(N)
172.5
124.2
131.2
439.5
141.8
215.6
409.3
429.5
396.8
155.1
210.0
151.5
355.0
202.4
148.7
120.6
422.7
343.9
320.2
155.4
361.9
380.0
147.2
220.7
356.3
202.7
329.8
405.5
369.3
293.9
270.4

Table 1 above shows the trials that were taken with no foam attached to the force
plate. There were no outliers in this data. The data ranges from 120.6 Newtons (N) to
439.5 N. The average force taken from this set of data was 270.4 N.

Table 2

Buiteweg Costanzo 19
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Foam Data
Trial Number

Type of Foam

1
EVA
2
EVA
3
EVA
4
EVA
5
EVA
6
EVA
7
EVA
8
EVA
9
EVA
10
EVA
11
EVA
12
EVA
13
EVA
14
EVA
15
EVA
16
EVA
17
EVA
18
EVA
19
EVA
20
EVA
21
EVA
22
EVA
23
EVA
24
EVA
25
EVA
26
EVA
27
EVA
28
EVA
29
EVA
30
EVA
Average Force

Max Force
(N)
109.7
46.8
357.4
78.9
220.5
107.5
44.5
84.4
103.2
274.4
40.1
41.0
93.6
253.5
311.3
130.8
41.1
320.5
54.2
56.6
145.1
365.5
274.3
363.1
318.1
251.1
83.2
330.7
255.3
139.5
176.5

In Table 2 above, the data collected during the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
experimental trials are shown. The data ranges from a minimum of 40.1 N to a maximum
of 365.5 N. There were no outliers in this data collected. The average force taken for the
EVA foam trials was 176.5 N. This is less than the no foam trials but the researchers must
first conduct a test to find if this is significant or not.
Table 3
Polyurethane Foam Data

Buiteweg Costanzo 20

Trial Number

Type of Foam

Max Force
(N)

Buiteweg Costanzo 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Polyurethane
Average Force

321.9
150.0
133.5
118.0
183.3
305.3
188.2
227.4
145.0
449.8
439.4
145.3
125.5
330.2
166.6
266.0
144.3
142.5
269.5
111.0
206.2
294.4
152.3
275.2
122.5
224.4
157.2
364.3
255.5
369.8
226.2

In Table 3 above, the data collected during the Polyurethane Foam experimental
trials are shown. There were no outliers that appeared in this data. The data ranges from
111 N to 449.8 N. The average force for the polyurethane foam is 226.2 N. This is close
to the no foam data trials but the sample mean for the polyurethane foam is still less than
the no foam sample mean.
Table 4
Polyethylene Foam Data
Trial Number

Type of Foam

Polyethylene

Max Force
(N)
323.6

Buiteweg Costanzo 22
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Average Force

383.8
408.4
429.7
302.9
123.3
100.0
275.4
301.0
105.0
261.4
170.2
396.2
175.3
434.5
252.7
130.5
175.1
477.0
133.1
166.5
293.7
100.5
185.4
119.4
219.5
127.8
155.3
254.2
134.9
237.21

Table 4 above shows the data collected during the trials that were taken with
Polyethylene foam attached to the force plate. The range of the data has a minimum of
100 N and a maximum of 477 N. There were no outliers that appeared in the data. The
average force for the polyethylene trials 237.21 N. This is fairly close to the polyurethane
foam and the no foam sample means and data collected.
Table 5
Observations
Date
Nov. 4

Observations
JUG not as constant as would like to be and speed "spirals" faster and slower.
Had to adjust the JUG a lot for it to hit the plate.
Checked PSI after about 10 trials to make sure staying as constant as possible.

Buiteweg Costanzo 23

Nov. 7

Ball was hitting the sides of the plate a lot.


Redid 3 EVA foam trials and 4 No Foam trials with numbers not similar to the
other trials
JUG was about 3.36 meters from stand.
Having some electrical issues with the JUG and keeping it going at a constant
rate.
Added PVC pipe behind the bottom part of the plate to keep it perpendicular to
the floor.
Running the Polyethylene and Polyutherane trials.
Adjusting JUG as needed. JUG needs adjusting when ball does not hit force
plate or hits too far to one side.
After 30 trials were finished, the researchers noticed the force plate was hanging
very low and retied ropes on stand.
Needed to adjust JUG forward due to the fact that it kept moving back from the
force of the ball launching. (Newton's Law)
Finished doing all trials, then repeated several Polyethylene trials and 2
Polyutherane trials which completed data collection.

In Table 5 above the observations taken during the experimental trials are shown.
All data trials were conducted within two days, 60 trials per day plus any trials that
needed to be repeated due to inconsistent data values. On November 4th, the No Foam
and Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam trials were conducted. On November 7th, the
Polyurethane and Polyethylene foam trials were conducted. The first five trials on
November 4th were test runs to see at which distance the Soccer JUG should be placed
from the force plate. It was concluded that the JUG be placed 3.36 meters away from the
force plate, which provided the least amount of variance in where the ball hit the force
plate.
To keep the force plate motion consistent the rope was restrung every 60 trials.
The types of foams were alternated every five trials to give the most consistent results.
Also, the force plate was zeroed through the LabQuest after each alternation between the
foams and no foam.

Buiteweg Costanzo 24

Data Analysis and Interpretation


Each of the three different foams and no foam had 30 trials for a total of 120 trials to
fulfill the requirement of at least 30 trials each for the statistical tests. To reduce
confounding, the trials were done in sets of five to not only add a layer of randomization
but also to allow the foams to return back to their original forms. The control variables

Buiteweg Costanzo 25
were the types of foams, soccer ball, and the distance between the force plate and soccer
JUG. The dependent variable was the force measured by the force plate. An effort was
made to keep the environment consistent for each trial. The force plate, stand, and soccer
JUG were placed in approximately the same location every trial. Every 30 trials the rope
was restrung on the force plate and stand, this was to reduce the variation in movement of
the force plate when the soccer ball would hit. It is shown that the experiment can be
replicated from trial to trial if procedures documented are followed. Other researchers can
replicate the experiment and receive approximately the same results.

Figure 8. Boxplots of Data


Figure 8 shows the distributions of the no foam, EVA foam, polyurethane foam,
and the polyethylene foams data. The no foams data is slightly skewed to the right with
a mean of 270.44 N that is relatively close to the median 257.3 N, and contains no

Buiteweg Costanzo 26
outliers. The EVA foams data has a mean of 176.53 N, the median of the data is 135.15
N, and this shows the data to be skewed to the right. The EVA foam also does not contain
any outliers. The polyurethane foams data has a mean of 226.15 N, the median of this
data is 202.45 N. The graph shows slight skewing to the right side also. The polyethylene
foams data contained a mean of 237.21 N, and the median of the data was 197.2 N.
There were no outliers but the data was slightly skewed to the right side. The data from
the no foam, EVA foam, polyurethane foam, and polyethylene foam shows that while the
data is close to one another there can be seen a slight variance between each type of foam
and no foam.
All four types of the data overlap which means they must have a relationship to
one another. The no foam data had the highest mean and median, which was to be
expected. The EVA foam had the lowest mean and median, which was also expected.
What came as unexpected was that data collected for the polyurethane and polyethylene
were almost identical. Both of the foams are made out of some of the same materials but
are structurally different. The overlapping of the data was expected because of how the
soccer ball would hit the force plate in different positons during each trial and how it
simulates the real life accuracy of soccer head gear.
The first statistical test conducted on the data was an ANOVA test. ANOVA is the
acronym for Analysis of Variance test. This compares three or more populations and tests
how far apart the sample means are with how much variation there is within the samples.
An ANOVA test was used in this case to test the three different types of foams with the
no foam. The first assumption that must be met for an ANOVA test is that all populations
are independent of each other. The second is that each population has a normal

Buiteweg Costanzo 27
distribution. There were at least 30 trials of each sample, with a total of 120 trials. Thus,
by the Central Limit Theorem their sampling distribution is normal. The final assumption
was that all populations have the same standard deviation, whose value is unknown. All
assumptions were met for the ANOVA test.

Table 6
ANOVA Values
Population
No Foam
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
Polyurethane
Polyethylene

ni
30
30
30
30

xxi
270.44
176.53
226.15
237.21

si
112.277
116.898
97.791
115.155

Table 6 above shows the different values used in the ANOVA statistical test.
These values were then used to calculate several statistics such as the Mean Square
Group (MSG), Mean Square Error (MSE), the F statistic, degrees of freedom, and the pvalue. The calculations for each of these values can be found in Appendix A: ANOVA
Sample Calculation.

Ho:

No Fo am =

Ha: Not all

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate =

No Foam ,

Polyurethane

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate ,

Polyethylene

Polyurethane ,

Polyethylene

are equal

Figure 9. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for ANOVA Test


Figure 9 above shows the null and alternate hypothesis used in an ANOVA test.
The null hypothesis states that all of the types of foam will give equal mean results to the

Buiteweg Costanzo 28
no foam population and to each other. The alternate hypothesis states that the means of
the foams will not all be equal to the no foam population and to each other. To find if the
null hypothesis is accepted, or if it fails to be rejected, the p-value was to be found.
Table 7
ANOVA Statistical Test Values
MSG
Statistical Values
45378.6388

MSE
12273.8943

F
3.69719

dF
3/116

Table 7 shows the statistical results found using the ANOVA statistical test. The
sample calculations can be found in Appendix A: ANOVA Sample Calculation. The Mean
Square Group divided by the Mean Square Error is used to find the F statistic value. The
degrees of freedom (dF) and the F statistic value are then used to find the p-value.

Figure 10. ANOVA Statistical test results


The TiNspire calculator ANOVA function was used to run this statistical test. The
results are shown above in Figure 10. The F statistic was found by dividing the Mean
Square Group (shown as MS in the figure) by the Mean Square Error (shown as
MSError in the figure). Finding the F statistic along with the degrees of freedom allows
for the p-value to be found. The p-value is the number that when compared to the alpha
level of 0.05, it will reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. (Appendix D).

Buiteweg Costanzo 29
There is first evidence that the foam does make a difference by looking at the
difference of their sample means, then confirmed by the ANOVA test. The p-value given
for the ANOVA test was 0.01385. This is less than the alpha level of 0.05 and means the
null hypothesis that the no foam, EVA foam, polyurethane foam, and polyethylene foam
were equal to one another was rejected. This indicates that there is evidence that the foam
does make a difference when looking at the difference between no foam and having foam
attached to the force plate. The p-value also shows that there is only a 1.3% of getting the
results as extreme as this by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true.
In addition to the ANOVA test to compare all of the means together, five, twosample t tests were conducted to compare the individual sample means against each other.
This was done because the data in the box plot in Figure 7 overlapped with each of the
trials conducted. The ANOVA test alone does not allow the researchers to make an
accurate conclusion given the statistical results.
A two-sample t test compares two sample means from two independent
populations to see if the difference between the populations is statistically significant.
This particular test was chosen because the objective was to find if foam had an impact
on the force measured by the force plate and if the EVA foam would produce the least
amount of force. Five of the two-sample t tests were conducted: no foam compared
against EVA foam, no foam against polyurethane foam, no foam against polyethylene
foam, EVA foam against polyurethane foam, and EVA foam against polyethylene foam.
The assumptions that the data was randomized, came from two distinct
populations, and that the samples are independent were fulfilled, as discussed in Figure 8,
respectively. Population means and population standard deviations remain unknown. All

Buiteweg Costanzo 30
four assumptions are met and the results of the two-sample t tests are reliable. There were
at least 30 trials of each sample, a total of 120 trials, so by the Central Limit Theorem
their sampling distribution is normal. To reduce confounding, each type of trial was
performed in increments of five, rotating between what day the trial was conducted on.

Ho:

No Foam =

Ha:

No Foam

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate

Figure 11. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for Two-Sample t test


The null and alternate hypotheses for the two-sample t test are shown in Figure 11
above. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the no foam is equal to the sample
mean of the EVA foam. The alternate hypothesis states that the sample mean data of the
no foam are greater than the EVA foam.

Figure 12. No Foam vs. EVA Foam Two-Sample t Test Results and t Distribution

Buiteweg Costanzo 31
The first t test taken was between the no foam trials and the EVA foam trials. The
results are shown in Figure 12. It was obvious to the researchers that the two means of the
data collected were not the same with a difference of 93.91 N. The t test shows that the pvalue is 0.0012. This is less than the alpha level of 0.05 which means that the null
hypothesis, that the two sample means would be equal, was rejected. There is evidence to
show that the EVA foam had a smaller force than the no foam. The p-value also shows
that there is a 0.12% chance of getting value this extreme by chance alone if the null
hypothesis is true. Figure 12 also shows the t distribution and p-value for the no foam
versus the ethylene vinyl acetate foam samples. Although the p-value is not extremely
visible in this distribution, there is a slightly shaded portion on the right hand side of the
tail of the t-distribution.
Ho:

No Foam =

Ha:

No Foam

Polyurethance

Polyurethane

Figure 13. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for Two-sample t test


The null and alternate hypothesis for the two-sample t test is shown in Figure 13
above. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the no foam is equal to the mean of the
polyurethane. The alternate hypothesis states that the mean data of the no foam is greater
than the polyurethane.

Buiteweg Costanzo 32

Figure 14. No Foam vs. Polyurethane Foam Two-sample t test Results and t Distribution
The two-sample t test between the no foam and the polyurethane gives the results
shown in Figure 14. The null and alternate hypotheses are the same as in the no foam and
Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam two-sample t test. The p-value that was calculated was
0.05439. This is greater than the standard alpha level of 0.05 and the null hypothesis, that
the sample means are the same, failed to be rejected. This means there is no evidence to
prove that the polyurethane foam had an effect on the final force although the sample
means have a difference of 44.29. The p-value also shows that there is a 5.4% chance of
getting a value this extreme by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true. This is a very
small percent and close to the alpha level so the results should be taken with caution.
Figure 14 also shows the t distribution and p-value of the no foam versus the
polyurethane foam. The p-value does appear on this distribution due to the smaller tvalue.
Ho:

No Foam =

Ha:

No Foam

Polyethylene

Polyethylene

Figure 15. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for Two-sample t test

Buiteweg Costanzo 33
The null and alternate hypothesis for the two-sample t test is shown in Figure 15
above. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the no foam is equal the mean of the
polyethylene. The alternate hypothesis states that the mean data of the no foam is greater
than the polyethylene.

Figure 16. No Foam vs. Polyethylene Foam Two-sample t test Results and t Distribution
The results for the two-sample t test between the no foam and the polyethylene
foam are shown in Figure 16 above. Again, the null and alternate hypotheses are the same
as the no foam and EVA foam two-sample t test. The two-sample t test shows that the pvalue for this set of data was about 0.131. This number is greater than the standard alpha
level of 0.05 and means the null hypothesis failed to be rejected. There is evidence to
support that the two may have had similar average forces although their sample means
are not equal to one another. This shows the polyethylene did not make a different when
decreasing the amount of force hitting the force plate. The p-value of 0.131 means that
there is a 13.1% chance of getting the value this extreme by chance alone if the null
hypothesis is true. Figure 16 also shows the no foam verses the polyethylene foam t
distribution and p-value. The p-value does appear on this distribution due to the slightly
larger t value.

Buiteweg Costanzo 34

Ho:

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate =

Ha:

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate

Polyurethane

Polyurethane

Figure 17. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for Two-sample t test


The null and alternate hypothesis for the two-sample t test is shown in Figure 17
above. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the EVA foam is equal to the mean of
the polyurethane. The alternate hypothesis states that the mean data of the EVA foam is
less than the polyurethane.

Figure 18. EVA vs. Polyurethane Two-sample t test Results and t Distribution
Other than testing the foams against the no foam, the researchers also tested the
EVA foam against the other two foams, thus confirming the researchers hypothesis. The
researchers hypothesis was that the EVA foam would produce the least amount of force.
The EVA foam and polyurethane foam two-sample t test is shown in Figure 18. The pvalue given for this set of data was 0.039972. This is less than the standard alpha level of
0.05 so the null hypothesis, that the sample means are equal, was rejected. There was no

Buiteweg Costanzo 35
evidence to show that the two sample means were equal. The EVA foam had more of an
impact on the force plate than the polyurethane foam, producing a smaller amount of
force. The p-value shows that there is a 4% chance of getting values this extreme by
chance alone if the null hypothesis, of the two sample means being equal, is true. Figure
18 shows the t distribution and p-value of the EVA foam versus the polyurethane foam
two-sample t test. While the p-value does appear on the t distribution it is still small
enough for the researchers to reject the null hypothesis.

Ho:

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate =

Ha:

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate

Polyethylene

Polyethylene

Figure 19. Null and Alternate Hypothesis for Two-sample t test


The null and alternate hypothesis for the two-sample t test is shown in Figure 19
above. The null hypothesis states that the mean of the EVA is equal to the mean of the
polyethylene. The alternate hypothesis states that the mean of the EVA foam is less than
the polyethylene foam.

Figure 20. EVA vs. Polyethylene Two-sample t test Results and t Distribution

Buiteweg Costanzo 36
The EVA foam was also compared to the third type of foam, polyethylene, to
conclude if the two were similar or not. The results of this test are shown above in Figure
20. The p-value of this data is 0.023716. This means the researchers can reject the null
hypothesis because the p-value is less than the standard alpha level of 0.05. There is
evidence to prove that the two types of foam had a different effect on the amount of force
absorbed. In this case, the EVA appears to have absorbed more of the force than the
polyethylene foam, thus producing a smaller force. This p-value means that there is about
a 2.3% chance that the values obtained through this experiment would be as extreme as
they are by chance alone if the null hypothesis was true. Figure 20 also shows the t
distribution and p-value for the EVA foam versus the polyethylene foam two-sample t
test. While the p-value is low enough for the researchers to reject the null hypothesis it is
still visible in the distribution.
The polyurethane and polyethylene foams were not tested against one another
because their statistical results would not have benefited this research. The researchers
were only looking for two things during this experiment. The first was to see if there was
a difference between having foam on the force plate and then no foam. This was covered
by the ANOVA test and the three two-sample t tests that compared the no foam to the
three different types of foam. The second was to prove that EVA foam would produce the
least amount of force, thus absorbing most of the impact. This was covered by the
ANOVA test and two, two-sample t tests that compared the EVA foam against the
polyurethane foam and polyethylene foam.
Using the ANOVA test it was found that with the p-value of 0.01385, the null
hypothesis that the no foam, EVA foam, polyurethane foam, and polyethylene foam were

Buiteweg Costanzo 37
equal to one another was rejected. From this point five, two-sample t tests were
conducted to prove that foam does reduce the amount of force impacted and that the EVA
foam will produce the least amount of force. The two-sample t test between the no foam
and EVA foam, with a p-value of 0.0012, rejects the null hypothesis that the two sample
means would be equal. The two-sample t tests between the no foam and the other two
types of foam both had p-values greater than the alpha level which causes the researchers
to fail to reject the null hypothesis that their sample means are equal. Although
statistically it shows that there was no effect between the two foams and the no foam, the
foams both have a difference of at least 45 N to the sample mean of the no foam.
The two-sample t test between the EVA foam and polyurethane foam, with a pvalue of 0.039972, proved to reject the null hypothesis that the two sample means would
be equal. The two-sample t test between the EVA foam and polyethylene foam, with a pvalue of 0.02371, proved to reject the null hypothesis that the two sample means would
be equal. Both of these two-sample t tests helped prove and provide statistical evidence
that supports the original hypothesis that the EVA foam would have more of an effect
absorbing the force when placed on the force plate.

Buiteweg Costanzo 38

Conclusion
The hypothesis that the foam would make a difference in the amount of force
exerted and that the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam would produce the least amount of
force was accepted. The EVA foam produced an average maximum force of 176.5 N,
polyurethane produced 226.2 N, polyethylene produced 237.2 N, and the no foam
produced 270.4 N. There was a difference of 93.9 N between the lowest maximum
average and the highest maximum average. An ANOVA test and five, two-sample t tests
were used to test the data in order to come to this conclusion. Using the ANOVA test and
two-sample t tests, it was determined that the foam did make a difference in the amount
of force hitting the force plate. The p-value of 0.013853 for the ANOVA test is lower than
the standard alpha level of 0.05 which proves that the means of all the data are not the
same. Also, the two-sample t tests between the foams and no foam were all below the
standard alpha level as well, proving again that the usage of foam does lessen the force
measured by the force plate. This indicates that wearing headgear reduces the risk of a

Buiteweg Costanzo 39
concussion occurring during head on collisions. The two-sample t tests also showed that
the EVA foam produced the best results between the three different types of foam. Both
of the p-values were below the standard alpha level of 0.05 providing evidence that the
EVA foam produced the least amount of force. Although the polyurethane and
polyethylene did reduce the amount of force exerted on the force plate, they did not
achieve the results that the EVA foam produced.
EVA foam is composed of the heating and mixing of ethylene and vinyl acetate.
The mixture of these two types of chemicals creates a bond that causes the foam to have a
high stress resistance, is water proof, and has a tolerance to all temperatures. This type of
foam is classified as closed-cell foam. The closed-cell structure provides the least amount
of elastic rebound and can absorb more force. Force is equal to the mass of an object
times the acceleration. When the force is reduced this will automatically reduce the
acceleration of the object. The EVA foam absorbed the most force, causing the force read
by the force plate to decrease which also reduces the acceleration. When the acceleration
is reduced the chances of a concussion occurring upon impact decrease as well.
One of the largest outside factors during experimentation was retrieving and
getting the soccer JUG to cooperate. After every trial the JUG needed at least thirty
seconds to return back to its normal speed. This not only slowed down the process of
completing the trials but also gave the need to redo multiple trials based on the
inaccuracy of the force that was produced. The second issue that arose from the JUG was
the inaccuracy of the location where the soccer ball would hit the force plate. The soccer

Buiteweg Costanzo 40
ball would either hit the center, the sides or the very top of the force plate causing
inaccurate readings from the force plate. Several trials were redone due to this issue.
As seen in the Data Analysis and Interpretation section of this paper, the ranges of
the data had an average difference of 340 N for the maximum force. While in some
scenarios this may be a wide range of data, this was expected by the researchers.
Headgear for soccer comes in two different types of protection. In both cases, the edges
of the headgear are covered in either a soft plastic or hard rubber stripping. This means if
the ball hits anywhere along the edge of the headgear the force could be doubled or
tripled than it originally would be due to the harder material. This helps explain as to why
the data range is so vast.
This experiment explains that the use of headgear cannot prevent concussions, but
it does reduce the risk of a concussion occurring. While the data and statistics provide
evidence for this, it is not always the case (Straus). Recent studies have shown that some
players who wear protective headgear have the mindset that they are 100% protected
against any dangerous scenario. When players think like this, they have the tendency to
be more aggressive and also take more dangerous headers. An example of this would be
when a player, wearing protective headgear, heads the ball close to the ground while
another player attempts to kick the ball. The data does suggest that headgear reduces the
risk of a concussion occurring but it also can provide a false sense of security to players.
To further expand the research on this topic, different scenarios should be
conducted. One way is to test different types of soccer balls with and without foam. The
soccer ball is made out of an outer casing and a bladder. The bladder is the inside or

Buiteweg Costanzo 41
center of the soccer ball. Testing different materials that soccer balls are made out of may
prove beneficial to reduce the risk of concussions occurring. A more reliable JUG model
to test the process would improve the accuracy in the data collected. Another process
could have been used when looking for this data by using an accelerometer and launching
the ball at a mannequin head to see the acceleration of the head at which a concussion
forms and how to decrease that.
It was determined that the data collected through this research could benefit the
athletic community. This research can be applied to other sports besides soccer, such as
football, lacrosse, and any other contact sport. With any sport that has physical contact,
there should always be safety precautions. Concussions are becoming more and more of
an issue in todays sports industry. Now, more than ever, doctors are encouraging players
to wear protective headgear. This research supports that claim. It provides evidence that
although headgear may not fully prevent a concussion, it can lessen the blow to the head,
creating less trauma to the brain.

Buiteweg Costanzo 42

Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thanks several individual for their help in the
process of this experimental process. First and foremost, thank you to Mr. McMillan,

Buiteweg Costanzo 43
Mrs. Cybulski, and Mrs. Dewey for teaching and guiding the researchers through the
experimental design, writing of the paper, and presenting this research. To Rick Buiteweg
for coming in to help with the function of the soccer JUG when there were technical
difficulties. Thank you to Bill Hanagan for lending the researchers the soccer JUG and
soccer balls. Without this equipment the experimental design could not have been done.
Finally, thank you to Jaqueline DeFor for giving us more than enough information on
concussions and what she deals with as an athletic trainer. Also thank you to Ms. DeFour
for providing the Return to Play Protocol and the Post Concussion Symptom Survey.

Appendix A: Creating the Force Plate Stand


Materials:
Passo Lab Stand
(4) Metal bars

Buiteweg Costanzo 44
(6) Duel Clasps
(2) Thin rope attached to hooks
Thin rope
Venor Force plate with handles
Procedure:
Refer to the numbered pictures for assistance setting up.
1.

Attach the four metal bars to the stand as shown in the picture below. Use four of
the clasps to do this.

2.

Wrap the two thin ropes that are attached to hooks around the handles of the force
plate. Wrap the hooked side around the handle 2-3 times then hook the rope so it
is secure.

3.

Hang the force plate from the top bar of the stand. Wrap each rope around the bar
and the stand tightly and be sure that force plate is level.

4.

Take the longer thin rope and run the ends through the bottom of the handles of
the force plate. Weave the ends of the rope in and out of the handles and around
the stand to make the plate sit more secure and evenly distributed. Tie off the ends
around the metal poles and stand.

5.

Attach two poles to the bottom of the stand, one on each side. Use two clasps to
hold the poles in place and face the front of the stand. (The front is the way the
force plate is facing.)

6.

To test the final product use a soccer ball and throw against the plate. Make sure
the bottom poles are secure so the stand does not fall forward after being struck.

Materials

tre
Figure 21. Setting Up the Stand
Figure 21 above shows the step by step process of setting up the stand that will
hold the force plate. The number refer to the procedural step on the previous page.

Buiteweg Costanzo 45

Appendix B: Randomizing the Trials


Materials:
TiNspire Calculator

Buiteweg Costanzo 46
Procedure:
1.

There will be 120 trials total, 30 for each type of foam and 30 with no foam.
Separate each of the 30 trials into groups of five.

2.

Assign each type of foam a number. There will be four groups.

3.

Use the Random Integer Function on the TiNspire calculator and use the numbers
one through four. Hit enter for the first type to test.

4.

Every five trials run hit enter on the calculator again to decide what the next type
of foam used will be until all 120 trials are accounted for.

Appendix C: Setting Up the Soccer JUG


Materials:

Buiteweg Costanzo 47
Soccer JUG
Extension Cord
Meter Stick
Procedure:
1.

Place the soccer JUG 3.36 meters away from the force plate. Make sure the white
wheels are where the measurement starts.

2.

Plug in the soccer JUG to an outlet, if needed attach an extension cord. Take into
account that the cords should not be in the way of the experiment.

3.

Before turning on the soccer JUG put the speed on 9. The speed is in rotations per
second. The interval does not matter (Figure 1).

4.

Turn on the soccer JUG and wait two minutes for it to reach its maximum speed
before trials begin.

5.

If the soccer ball does not hit the force plate in the right location the height can be
adjusted with a dial on the left hand side of the soccer JUG next to the white
wheels (Figure 2).

6.

Place any type of weight, above 10 kg, behind the soccer JUG. This prevents the
soccer JUG from moving backwards when the ball is launched (Figure 2).

Figure 22. Soccer JUG Speed Setting

Buiteweg Costanzo 48
Figure 22 above shows the setting at which the speed setting should be placed at.
This panel also contains the on and off switch that is important and the battery hook up if
there is no outlet available.

Dial

Weigh
t

Figure 23. Soccer JUG Posistioning


Figure 23 shows the position where the dial is at and the where the weight should
be placed. The dial is on the left-hand side of the soccer JUG right by the white wheel.
The weight should be placed where indicated above. If this is done outside stakes can be
used to keep the soccer JUG in place instead of the weight.
Appendix D: ANOVA Sample Equation
To see whether the null or alternative hypothesis is accepted or rejected, a p-value
needs to be calculated. It can be found once F is found. To find F the
Group (MSG), and the Mean Square Error (MSE) are needed.

x =

nn x n +n eva x eva +n pu x pu +n pe x pe
N

x , Mean Square

Buiteweg Costanzo 49

x =

30 ( 270.44 ) +30 ( 176.53 )+ 30 ( 226.15 )+30 ( 237.21 ) 27309.9


=
120
120
x =227.583

Figure 24. X-Bar Sample Calculation


Figure 24 shows how the value of

x was calculated using the know sample

size of each population, n, the sample mean of each population,

x i , and the total


x using the calculation

amount of observations, N. A value of 227.583 was found for

above. This value is needed to find both the Mean Square Group and Mean Square Error.
2

MSG=

nn ( x n x ) +neva ( x eva x ) + n pu ( x pu x ) +n pe ( x pe x )
I 1

30(270.44227.58)2 +30(176.532275.8)2 +30(226.15227.58)2+30 (237.21227.58)2


MSG=
41
MSG=

136135.91628
3

MSG=45378.6388

Figure 25. Mean Square Group Sample Calculation


Figure 25 above finds the Means Square Group using n,

x i ,

x , and I.

45378.6388 is the result of the sample calculation above. I is the number of populations
that are included when conducting the ANOVA test. The sample size is represented by n.
The sample means are represented by
between each population.

x i . MSG is the variation among sample means

Buiteweg Costanzo 50

MSE=

( nn1 ) sn2 + ( n n1 ) s n2+ ( nn1 ) sn2 +(nn1)s n2


N I

( 301 ) 112.277 2 + ( 301 ) 116.8982 + ( 301 ) 97.7912 +(301)115.155 2


MSE=
1204
MSE=

45378.63876
116

MSE=12273.8943
Figure 26. Mean Square Error Sample Calculation
Figure 26 above finds the Mean Square Error using n, s, N, and I. 12273.8943 was
the result of the calculation above. The sample size for each population is represented by
n. The standard deviation for each sample is represented by s. I is the number of
populations that are included when conducting the ANOVA test. N is the total number of
observations throughout all the populations. MSE is the variation among individuals in
all samples of each population.
F=

MSG
MSE

F=

45378.6388
12273.8943

F=3.69719

Figure 27. F Sample Calculation


Figure 27 shows the calculations needed to find F using Mean Square Group and
Mean Square Error. 3.69719 is the result of the calculations above. Given F it was found
that the p-value was equal to 0.0135853.
Appendix E: Two Sample t -test Sample Equation

Buiteweg Costanzo 51
To see whether the null or alternative hypothesis is accepted or rejected, a p-value
needs to be calculated. It can be found once the t-value is found.

t foam1 vs . foam2=

x foam1 x foam 2

s foam12 s foam22
+
n foam1 nfoam2

Foam one and Foam two corresponds with the first foam and second foam or no
foam being compared in the test. The means of the foams or no foam and standard
deviations of the foams or no foam are used in the equation, represented by

x and s,

respectively. The variable n is the number of samples from each population. Once the tvalue is found, it is used to find the p-value. The p-value represents the probability that
the results obtained would occur by chance alone if the null hypothesis is true. Below is a
sample calculation on how the t value was found.

t no foamvs. eva =

t=

x no foam x eva

s no foam2 seva 2
+
nno foam neva

(270.44176.53)

112.277 116.898
+
30
30

93.91
93.91
=
875.7089 29.5924

t=3.1735
Figure 28. Two-sample t test Sample Calculation
Figure 28 is a sample problem of how the t value was found for the no foam
against the Ethylene Vinyl Acetate foam. The t value obtained was 3.1735. This t value is
the number of standard deviations away from the mean, and this t value is high. The pvalue was found to be zero.

Buiteweg Costanzo 52
Works Cited
Anissimov, Michael, and Niki Foster. "What Is Polyethylene Foam?" WiseGeek.
Conjecture, 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.wisegeek.com/whatis-polyethylene-foam.htm>.
Albers, John. "How Is Polyurethane Foam Made?" EHow. Demand Media, 12 Nov. 2008.
Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4598475_howpolyurethane-foam-made.html>.
"Concussion." MayoClinic.org. Ed. Roger W. Harms. Mayo Clinic, 21 Sept. 2014. Web.
21 Sept. 2014.<http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/concussion/basics/definition/con-20019272>.
"Concussion Statistics." Concussion Safety. National Traumatic Brain Injury, Dec. 2013.
Web. 23 Nov. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.concussionsafety.com
%2Fconcussion-statistics-links%2Fconcussion-statistics-52000-deaths-per-year
%2F>.
DeFour, Jacqueline. RE: Concussion Questions. Message to KathyJo Buiteweg. 2
December. 2014. E-mail.
Delaney, Scott J., Vincent J. Lacroix, Suzanne Leclerc, and Karen M. Johnston.
Concussions Among University Football and Soccer Players. Montreal: McGill
Sport Medicine Clinic, n.d. PDF.
Frei, Bernard. "Headgear." World Soccer Shop. Pass Back, n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.
<http://soccergear.worldsoccershop.com/search#w=headgear&asug=>.

Buiteweg Costanzo 53

Gorgens, Kim. "Most concussions deliver 95 g's, neuropsychologist says." University of


Denver. ScienceDaily, 25 June 2010.
<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624092526.htm>.
Hoban, Rose. "First Line of Defense: Playing It Safe with Concussions." North Carolina
Health News. Park Foundation, 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2013/03/13/first-line-of-defenseplaying-it-safe-with-concussions/>.
Moore, Nicole C. "Understanding Concussions: Testing Head-impact Sensors." Michigan
Engineering. University of Michigan, 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.engin.umich.edu/college/about/news/stories/2014/january/understan
ding-concussions-testing-head-impact-sensors>.
Peterson, Richard, and Laurie Peterson. "EVA Foam." Metro Foam Products. The Closed
Cell Foam Company, 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
<http://metrofoam.com.au/eva-foam.html>.
Phend, Crystal. "Concussions Appear to Have Lifelong Impact on Brain."MedPage
Today. Everyday Health, 27 Jan. 2009. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.medpagetoday.com/CriticalCare/HeadTrauma/12623>.
Post-Concussion Symptom Survey. Michigan High School Athletic Association. 2011.
N.p
Straus, Lindsey B. "U.S. Soccer Federation Finds Padded Headgear Ineffective in
Reducing Concussion Risk." MomsTeam. Sport Team Logic, July 2007. Web. 16

Buiteweg Costanzo 54
Nov. 2014. <http://www.momsteam.com/us-soccer-federation-finds-paddedheadgear-ineffective-in-reducing-concussion-risk>.

Potrebbero piacerti anche