Literature DB >> 26168122

An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.

Eric-Jan Wagenmakers1, Ruud Wetzels2, Denny Borsboom2, Han L J van der Maas2, Rogier A Kievit2.   

Abstract

The veracity of substantive research claims hinges on the way experimental data are collected and analyzed. In this article, we discuss an uncomfortable fact that threatens the core of psychology's academic enterprise: almost without exception, psychologists do not commit themselves to a method of data analysis before they see the actual data. It then becomes tempting to fine tune the analysis to the data in order to obtain a desired result-a procedure that invalidates the interpretation of the common statistical tests. The extent of the fine tuning varies widely across experiments and experimenters but is almost impossible for reviewers and readers to gauge. To remedy the situation, we propose that researchers preregister their studies and indicate in advance the analyses they intend to conduct. Only these analyses deserve the label "confirmatory," and only for these analyses are the common statistical tests valid. Other analyses can be carried out but these should be labeled "exploratory." We illustrate our proposal with a confirmatory replication attempt of a study on extrasensory perception.
© The Author(s) 2012.

Keywords:  Bayesian hypothesis test; ESP; confirmatory experiments; wonky statistics

Year:  2012        PMID: 26168122     DOI: 10.1177/1745691612463078

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  136 in total

1.  Are Associations Between "Sexist" Video Games and Decreased Empathy Toward Women Robust? A Reanalysis of Gabbiadini et al. 2016.

Authors:  Christopher J Ferguson; M Brent Donnellan
Journal:  J Youth Adolesc       Date:  2017-06-21

2.  The registration continuum in clinical science: A guide toward transparent practices.

Authors:  Stephen D Benning; Rachel L Bachrach; Edward A Smith; Andrew J Freeman; Aidan G C Wright
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2019-08

3.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

Authors:  Dale J Barr; Roger Levy; Christoph Scheepers; Harry J Tily
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 3.059

Review 4.  Single-Case Research Methods: History and Suitability for a Psychological Science in Need of Alternatives.

Authors:  Camilo Hurtado-Parrado; Wilson López-López
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2015-09

5.  Making sense of the noise: Replication difficulties of Correll's (2008) modulation of 1/f noise in a racial bias task.

Authors:  Christine Madurski; Etienne P LeBel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-08

6.  Playing with Data--Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right.

Authors:  Klaas Sijtsma
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.500

7.  Cluster failure or power failure? Evaluating sensitivity in cluster-level inference.

Authors:  Stephanie Noble; Dustin Scheinost; R Todd Constable
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-12-15       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 8.  The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.

Authors:  Jonathan P Tennant; François Waldner; Damien C Jacques; Paola Masuzzo; Lauren B Collister; Chris H J Hartgerink
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-04-11

9.  Multisensory temporal processing in own-body contexts: plausibility of hand ownership does not improve visuo-tactile asynchrony detection.

Authors:  Robert T Keys; Anina N Rich; Regine Zopf
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Action video games do not improve the speed of information processing in simple perceptual tasks.

Authors:  Don van Ravenzwaaij; Wouter Boekel; Birte U Forstmann; Roger Ratcliff; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-06-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.