Literature DB >> 27474140

What Should Researchers Expect When They Replicate Studies? A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science.

Prasad Patil1, Roger D Peng1, Jeffrey T Leek2.   

Abstract

A recent study of the replicability of key psychological findings is a major contribution toward understanding the human side of the scientific process. Despite the careful and nuanced analysis reported, the simple narrative disseminated by the mass, social, and scientific media was that in only 36% of the studies were the original results replicated. In the current study, however, we showed that 77% of the replication effect sizes reported were within a 95% prediction interval calculated using the original effect size. Our analysis suggests two critical issues in understanding replication of psychological studies. First, researchers' intuitive expectations for what a replication should show do not always match with statistical estimates of replication. Second, when the results of original studies are very imprecise, they create wide prediction intervals-and a broad range of replication effects that are consistent with the original estimates. This may lead to effects that replicate successfully, in that replication results are consistent with statistical expectations, but do not provide much information about the size (or existence) of the true effect. In this light, the results of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology can be viewed as statistically consistent with what one might expect when performing a large-scale replication experiment.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reproducibility Project: Psychology; p values; prediction intervals; replication; reproducibility

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27474140      PMCID: PMC4968573          DOI: 10.1177/1745691616646366

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


  18 in total

1.  The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: causes, consequences, and remedies.

Authors:  Scott E Maxwell
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2004-06

2.  Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution.

Authors:  Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  A comment on replication, p-values and evidence.

Authors:  S N Goodman
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Reproducible epidemiologic research.

Authors:  Roger D Peng; Francesca Dominici; Scott L Zeger
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  An estimate of the science-wise false discovery rate and application to the top medical literature.

Authors:  Leah R Jager; Jeffrey T Leek
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Statistics: P values are just the tip of the iceberg.

Authors:  Jeffrey T Leek; Roger D Peng
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors.

Authors:  Andrew Gelman; John Carlin
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-11

8.  An Introduction to Registered Replication Reports at Perspectives on Psychological Science.

Authors:  Daniel J Simons; Alex O Holcombe; Barbara A Spellman
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-09

9.  Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic?

Authors:  David J Stanley; Jeffrey R Spence
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2014-05

10.  Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli.

Authors:  Jacob Westfall; David A Kenny; Charles M Judd
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-08-11
View more
  33 in total

1.  A theory and methodology to quantify knowledge.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 2.963

2.  Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Can You Repeat That? Exploring the Definition of a Successful Model Replication in Health Economics.

Authors:  Emma McManus; David Turner; Tracey Sach
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Progress toward openness, transparency, and reproducibility in cognitive neuroscience.

Authors:  Rick O Gilmore; Michele T Diaz; Brad A Wyble; Tal Yarkoni
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 5.691

5.  Planning, conducting, and analyzing a psychophysiological experiment on challenge and threat: A comprehensive tutorial.

Authors:  Phillip R Johnston; Alexandra E Volkov; William S Ryan; Spike W S Lee
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-05-23

6.  The effect of apathy and compulsivity on planning and stopping in sequential decision-making.

Authors:  Jacqueline Scholl; Hailey A Trier; Matthew F S Rushworth; Nils Kolling
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Random responses inflate statistical estimates in heavily skewed addictions data.

Authors:  Kevin M King; Dale S Kim; Connor J McCabe
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 4.492

Review 8.  Replicability and Prediction: Lessons and Challenges from GWAS.

Authors:  Urko M Marigorta; Juan Antonio Rodríguez; Greg Gibson; Arcadi Navarro
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 11.639

9.  The case for formal methodology in scientific reform.

Authors:  Berna Devezer; Danielle J Navarro; Joachim Vandekerckhove; Erkan Ozge Buzbas
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.963

10.  Message Design Choices Don't Make Much Difference to Persuasiveness and Can't Be Counted On-Not Even When Moderating Conditions Are Specified.

Authors:  Daniel J O'Keefe; Hans Hoeken
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.