This commentary builds on the Büsch and Loffing (2024) exploration of methodological best practices for validly evaluating intervention studies. Extending their perspective, it is argued that researchers should adopt either the frequentist or the Bayesian framework for hypothesis testing, instead of blurring the two approaches. The choice of which framework to follow must be made based on the researcher’s inferential goals and philosophical commitments. Adopting a methodological falsificationist philosophy of science, it is illustrated how best practices can be justified and coherently combined when aiming for severely tested (i.e., error-controlled) claims at the end of a research line. In this context, it is emphasized that prerequisites for conducting severe tests, such as determining a smallest effect size of interest (SESOI), are important research endeavors that sport scientists should be more engaged with. Consequently, a central shift in the current discussion is recommended. Researchers need to discuss methodological best practices to validly determine a SESOI.
