DOCSLIB.ORG

The Psychological Science Accelerator 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Psychological Science Accelerator 1 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Psychological Science Faculty Publications and Psychological Science Presentations 10-1-2018 The syP chological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology through a Distributed Collaborative Network Hannah Moshontz Duke University Lorne Campbell University of Western Ontario Charles R. Ebersole University of Virginia Hans IJzerman Universite Grenoble Alpes Heather L. Urry Tufts nU iversity See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/psycpub Part of the Community Psychology Commons, Quantitative Psychology Commons, and the Theory and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Moshontz, Hannah; Campbell, Lorne; Ebersole, Charles R.; IJzerman, Hans; Urry, Heather L.; Forscher, Patrick S.; Grahe, Jon E.; McCarthy, Randy J.; Musser, Erica D.; and Antfolk, Jan, "The sP ychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology through a Distributed Collaborative Network" (2018). Psychological Science Faculty Publications and Presentations. 3. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/psycpub/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychological Science at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychological Science Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Hannah Moshontz, Lorne Campbell, Charles R. Ebersole, Hans IJzerman, Heather L. Urry, Patrick S. Forscher, Jon E. Grahe, Randy J. McCarthy, Erica D. Musser, and Jan Antfolk This article is available at ScholarWorks@UARK: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/psycpub/3 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE ACCELERATOR 1 The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology through a Distributed Collaborative Network An updated version of this manuscript is published online at Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science (https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607). Please contact [email protected] if you would like a copy of the accepted version. Hannah Moshontz Duke University [email protected] Lorne Campbell University of Western Ontario [email protected] Charles R. Ebersole University of Virginia [email protected] Hans IJzerman Université Grenoble Alpes [email protected] Heather L. Urry Tufts University [email protected] Patrick S. Forscher University of Arkansas [email protected] Jon E Grahe Pacific Lutheran University [email protected] Randy J. McCarthy Northern Illinois University [email protected] Erica D. Musser Florida International University [email protected] Jan Antfolk Åbo Akademi University [email protected] Christopher M. Castille Nicholls State University [email protected] Thomas Rhys Evans Coventry University [email protected] Susann Fiedler Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods [email protected] Jessica Kay Flake McGill University [email protected] Diego A. Forero Universidad Antonio Nariño [email protected] Steve M. J. Janssen University of Nottingham - Malaysia Campus [email protected] Justin Robert Keene Texas Tech University [email protected] John Protzko University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected] Balazs Aczel ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University [email protected] Sara Álvarez Solas Universidad Regional Amazónica Ikiam [email protected] Daniel Ansari The University of Western Ontario [email protected] Dana Awlia Ashland University [email protected] Ernest Baskin Haub School of Business, Saint Joseph's University [email protected] Carlota Batres Franklin and Marshall College [email protected] Martha Lucia Borras-Guevara University of St Andrews [email protected] Cameron Brick University of Cambridge [email protected] Priyanka Chandel Pt Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Armand Chatard Université de Poitiers et CNRS [email protected] William J. Chopik Michigan State University [email protected] David Clarance Busara Center for Behavioral Economics [email protected] Nicholas A. Coles University of Tennessee [email protected] Katherine S. Corker Grand Valley State University [email protected] Barnaby James Wyld Dixson The University of Queensland [email protected] Vilius Dranseika Vilnius University [email protected] Yarrow Dunham Yale University [email protected] Nicholas W. Fox Rutgers University [email protected] Gwendolyn Gardiner University of California, Riverside [email protected] S. Mason Garrison Vanderbilt University [email protected] Tripat Gill Wilfrid Laurier University [email protected] Amanda C Hahn Humboldt State University [email protected] Bastian Jaeger Tilburg University [email protected] Pavol Kačmár University of Pavol Jozef Šafárik in Košice [email protected] Gwenaël Kaminski Université de Toulouse [email protected] Philipp Kanske Technische Universität Dresden [email protected] Zoltan Kekecs Lund University [email protected] Melissa Kline MIT [email protected] Monica A Koehn Western Sydney University [email protected] Pratibha Kujur Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Carmel A. Levitan Occidental College [email protected] THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE ACCELERATOR 2 Jeremy K. Miller Willamette University [email protected] Ceylan Okan Western Sydney University [email protected] Jerome Olsen University of Vienna [email protected] Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios Queensland University of Technology [email protected] Asil Ali Özdoğru Üsküdar University [email protected] Babita Pande Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Arti Parganiha Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Noorshama Parveen Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Gerit Pfuhl UiT The Arctic University of Norway [email protected] Sraddha Pradhan Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Ivan Ropovik University of Presov [email protected] Nicholas O. Rule University of Toronto [email protected] Blair Saunders University of Dundee [email protected] Vidar Schei NHH Norwegian School of Economics [email protected] Kathleen Schmidt Southern Illinois University Carbondale [email protected] Margaret Messiah Singh Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University [email protected] Miroslav Sirota University of Essex [email protected] Crystal N. Steltenpohl University of Southern Indiana [email protected] Stefan Stieger Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences [email protected] Daniel Storage University of Illinois [email protected] Dr. Gavin Brent Sullivan Coventry University [email protected] Anna Szabelska Queen's University Belfast [email protected] Christian K. Tamnes University of Oslo [email protected] Miguel A. Vadillo Universidad Autónoma de Madrid [email protected] Jaroslava V. Valentova University of Sao Paulo [email protected] Wolf Vanpaemel University of Leuven [email protected] Marco A. C. Varella University of Sao Paulo [email protected] Evie Vergauwe University of Geneva [email protected] Mark Verschoor University of Groningen [email protected] Michelangelo Vianello University of Padova [email protected] Martin Voracek University of Vienna, Austria [email protected] Glenn P. Williams Abertay University [email protected] John Paul Wilson Montclair State University [email protected] Janis H. Zickfeld University of Oslo [email protected] Jack D. Arnal McDaniel College [email protected] Burak Aydin RTE University [email protected] Sau-Chin Chen Tzu-Chi University [email protected] Lisa M. DeBruine University of Glasgow [email protected] Ana Maria Fernandez Universidad de Santiago [email protected] Kai T. Horstmann Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin [email protected] Peder M. Isager Eindhoven University of Technology [email protected] Benedict Jones University of Glasgow [email protected] Aycan Kapucu Ege University [email protected] Hause Lin University of Toronto [email protected] Michael C. Mensink University of Wisconsin-Stout [email protected] Gorka Navarrete Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez [email protected] Miguel A. Silan University of the Philippines Diliman [email protected] Christopher R. Chartier Ashland University [email protected] Author’s Note: The authors declare no conflict of interest with the research. Authors are listed in tiers according to their contributions. Within tiers, authors are listed in alphabetical order. The first and last authors contributed to supervision and oversight of this manuscript, preparing the original draft of the manuscript, reviewing, and editing the manuscript. Authors 1 through 5 were central to preparing the original draft of the manuscript, reviewing, and editing the manuscript. Authors 6 through 9 contributed substantially to the original draft of the manuscript, reviewing, and editing. Authors 10 through 18 contributed to specific sections of the original draft of the manuscript and provided reviewing and editing. Authors 19 through 83 contributed to reviewing THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE ACCELERATOR 3 and editing the manuscript. Authors 84 through 96 contributed to conceptualization of the project by drafting policy and procedural documents upon which the manuscript is built, reviewing, and editing. Jerome Olsen created the network
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:2102.03380V2 [Cs.AI] 29 Jun 2021
    Reproducibility in Evolutionary Computation MANUEL LÓPEZ-IBÁÑEZ, University of Málaga, Spain JUERGEN BRANKE, University of Warwick, UK LUÍS PAQUETE, University of Coimbra, CISUC, Department of Informatics Engineering, Portugal Experimental studies are prevalent in Evolutionary Computation (EC), and concerns about the reproducibility and replicability of such studies have increased in recent times, reflecting similar concerns in other scientific fields. In this article, we discuss, within the context of EC, the different types of reproducibility and suggest a classification that refines the badge system of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) adopted by ACM Transactions on Evolutionary Learning and Optimization (https://dlnext.acm.org/journal/telo). We identify cultural and technical obstacles to reproducibility in the EC field. Finally, we provide guidelines and suggest tools that may help to overcome some of these reproducibility obstacles. Additional Key Words and Phrases: Evolutionary Computation, Reproducibility, Empirical study, Benchmarking 1 INTRODUCTION As in many other fields of Computer Science, most of the published research in Evolutionary Computation (EC) relies on experiments to justify their conclusions. The ability of reaching similar conclusions by repeating an experiment performed by other researchers is the only way a research community can reach a consensus on an empirical claim until a mathematical proof is discovered. From an engineering perspective, the assumption that experimental findings hold under similar conditions is essential for making sound decisions and predicting their outcomes when tackling a real-world problem. The “reproducibility crisis” refers to the realisation that many experimental findings described in peer-reviewed scientific publications cannot be reproduced, because e.g. they lack the necessary data, they lack enough details to repeat the experiment or repeating the experiment leads to different conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions Andrée Rathemacher University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Technical Services Faculty Presentations Technical Services 2017 "Fake Results": The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions Andrée Rathemacher University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations Part of the Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Recommended Citation Rathemacher, Andrée, ""Fake Results": The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions" (2017). Technical Services Faculty Presentations. Paper 48. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations/48http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ts_presentations/48 This Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Technical Services at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Services Faculty Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Fake Results” The Reproducibility Crisis in Research and Open Science Solutions “It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” — John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005 Those are the words of John Ioannidis (yo-NEE-dees) in a highly-cited article from 2005. Now based at Stanford University, Ioannidis is a meta-scientist who conducts “research on research” with the goal of making improvements. Sources: Ionnidis, John P. A. “Why Most
    [Show full text]
  • Why Replications Do Not Fix the Reproducibility Crisis: a Model And
    1 63 2 Why Replications Do Not Fix the Reproducibility 64 3 65 4 Crisis: A Model and Evidence from a Large-Scale 66 5 67 6 Vignette Experiment 68 7 69 8 Adam J. Berinskya,1, James N. Druckmanb,1, and Teppei Yamamotoa,1,2 70 9 71 a b 10 Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139; Department of Political Science, Northwestern 72 University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 11 73 12 This manuscript was compiled on January 9, 2018 74 13 75 14 There has recently been a dramatic increase in concern about collective “file drawer” (4). When publication decisions depend 76 15 whether “most published research findings are false” (Ioannidis on factors beyond research quality, the emergent scientific 77 16 2005). While the extent to which this is true in different disciplines re- consensus may be skewed. Encouraging replication seems to 78 17 mains debated, less contested is the presence of “publication bias,” be one way to correct a biased record of published research 79 18 which occurs when publication decisions depend on factors beyond resulting from this file drawer problem (5–7). Yet, in the 80 19 research quality, most notably the statistical significance of an ef- current landscape, one must also consider potential publication 81 20 fect. Evidence of this “file drawer problem” and related phenom- biases at the replication stage. While this was not an issue 82 21 ena across fields abounds, suggesting that an emergent scientific for OSC since they relied on over 250 scholars to replicate the 83 22 consensus may represent false positives.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Science Studies I
    PHIL 209A / SOCG 255A / HIGR 238 / COGR 225A Intro to Science Studies I Fall 2017 Instructor: Kerry McKenzie [email protected] Seminars: Tuesday 9.30-12.20pm, HSS 3027. Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4pm, HSS 8088. 1 Overview. This course is a philosophically slanted introduction to Science Studies. Our central question is a conceptual one, whose relevance to Science Studies should speak for itself – namely, what is science, and what distinguishes science from other fields? In grappling with this question we’ll familiarize ourselves with central works in the philosophy of science canon, and make glancing acquaintance with some more contemporary issues in scientific epistemology and metaphysics. But our guiding motif is a normative one: what, if anything, makes science entitled to the privileged status that it enjoys within culture? In more detail. The ‘question of demarcation’ – that of what, if anything, makes what we call ‘science’ science – was a central preoccupation of many of the major 20th century philosophers of science. While interest in this topic waned after the appearance of Larry Laudan’s ‘Demise of the Demarcation Problem’ in 1983, the question of what separates science from ‘pseudoscience’ is now making something of a comeback. In this course, we will review the approaches to demarcation offered by the philosophers Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos – all of which serve as concise introductions to the dominant themes of their work as a whole – and then examine some more contemporary approaches more centred on pragmatics and the philosophy of language. We will then consider how homeopathy – for most a pseudoscience par excellence – fares with regard to the criteria we’ll have studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychology's Replication Crisis and the Grant Culture: Righting the Ship
    PPSXXX10.1177/1745691616687745LilienfeldRighting the Ship 687745research-article2017 Perspectives on Psychological Science 2017, Vol. 12(4) 660 –664 Psychology’s Replication Crisis and the © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: Grant Culture: Righting the Ship sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616687745 10.1177/1745691616687745 www.psychologicalscience.org/PPS Scott O. Lilienfeld Department of Psychology, Emory University Abstract The past several years have been a time for soul searching in psychology, as we have gradually come to grips with the reality that some of our cherished findings are less robust than we had assumed. Nevertheless, the replication crisis highlights the operation of psychological science at its best, as it reflects our growing humility. At the same time, institutional variables, especially the growing emphasis on external funding as an expectation or de facto requirement for faculty tenure and promotion, pose largely unappreciated hazards for psychological science, including (a) incentives for engaging in questionable research practices, (b) a single­minded focus on programmatic research, (c) intellectual hyperspecialization, (d) disincentives for conducting direct replications, (e) stifling of creativity and intellectual risk taking, (f) researchers promising more than they can deliver, and (g) diminished time for thinking deeply. Preregistration should assist with (a), but will do little about (b) through (g). Psychology is beginning to right the ship, but it will need to confront the increasingly deleterious impact of the grant culture on scientific inquiry. Keywords replication, grants, preregistration, confirmation bias “Science is a struggle for truth against method­ psychological phenomena, such as behavioral priming, ological, psychological, and sociological obstacles” the effects of facial expressions on emotions, and the (Fanelli & Ioannidis, 2013, p.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bayesian Treatise on the Replication Crisis in Science
    A Bayesian Treatise on The Replication Crisis in Science by True Gibson A thesis submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biochemistry and Biophysics Honors Scholar Presented May 25, 2018 Commencement June 2018 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF True Gibson for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biochemistry and Biophysics presented on May 25, 2018. Title: A Bayesian Treatise on The Replication Crisis in Science. Abstract approved: __________________________________________________ Jonathan Kaplan Abstract Over the past decade, it has come to light that many published scientific findings cannot be reproduced. This has led to the replication crisis in science. Many researchers feel that they can no longer trust much of what they read in scientific journals, and the public is becoming ever more dubious of published research findings. I argue herein that the replication crisis is a result of the mistaken belief that the methods of classical statistical inference provide a coherent objective basis for evaluating scientific hypotheses. To solve the replication crisis, I suggest that the scientific community ought to invoke a Bayesian framework of statistical inference which integrates both successful and failed replication attempts to determine the confidence they should have in any given scientific hypothesis. Key Words: Inductive Reasoning, Replication Crisis, Reproducibility, Statistical Inference, Bayesian Statistics Corresponding
    [Show full text]
  • Researchers Overturn Landmark Study on the Replicability of Psychological Science
    Researchers overturn landmark study on the replicability of psychological science By Peter Reuell Harvard Staff Writer Category: HarvardScience Subcategory: Culture & Society KEYWORDS: psychology, psychological science, replication, replicate, reproduce, reproducibility, Center for Open Science, Gilbert, Daniel Gilbert, King, Gary King, Science, Harvard, FAS, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Reuell, Peter Reuell Summary: A 2015 study claiming that more than half of all psychology studies cannot be replicated turns out to be wrong. Harvard researchers have discovered that the study contains several statistical and methodological mistakes, and that when these are corrected, the study actually shows that the replication rate in psychology is quite high – indeed, it is statistically indistinguishable from 100%. RELATED LINKS: According to two Harvard professors and their collaborators, a 2015 landmark study showing that more than half of all psychology studies cannot be replicated is actually wrong. In an attempt to determine the replicability of psychological science, a consortium of 270 scientists known as The Open Science Collaboration (OSC) tried to replicate the results of 100 published studies. More than half of them failed, creating sensational headlines worldwide about the “replication crisis” in psychology. But an in-depth examination of the data by Daniel Gilbert (Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University), Gary King (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University), Stephen Pettigrew (doctoral student in the Department of Government at Harvard University), and Timothy Wilson (Sherrell J. Aston Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia) has revealed that the OSC made some serious mistakes that make this pessimistic conclusion completely unwarranted: The methods of many of the replication studies turn out to be remarkably different from the originals and, according to Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson, these “infidelities” had two important consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Replication Crisis, the Rise of New Research Practices and What It Means for Experimental Economics ESA Report
    The replication crisis, the rise of new research practices and what it means for experimental economics ESA Report Lionel Page* Charles N. Noussair Robert Slonim 1. Introduction In the wake of the replication crisis in psychology, a range of new approaches has been advocated to improve scientific practices and the replicability of published studies in the behavioural sciences. The ESA Executive Committee commissioned an ad hoc committee to review the issues raised by the replication crisis, and how they affect research in experimental economics. The present report is the result of this review. Its content has greatly benefited from the personal views and insights of a large number of ESA members. The views within the community of researchers in experimental economics are diverse. The present report does not aim at determining a strict ESA policy. Rather, it aims to bring to the community of experimental economists the collective wisdom spread among experimentalists. The report presents a discussion of the different issues related to replicability and discusses the different potential solutions, with their benefits and pitfalls. The report also contains a series of recommendations that aim to address the challenges presented by the replication crisis, while respecting the diversity of views within the ESA community. 2. The issues raised by the replication crisis In recent years, there has been a growing concern that, for a substantial proportion of studies published in scientific journals, the results are false (Ioannidis, 2005). This concern has been particularly strong in psychology, and it has spread to other social sciences, including economics. In psychology, many studies, some of which are very well-known and discussed in textbooks, have seen attempts at replication fail.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why Replication Is Overrated Current Debates About The
    Uljana Feest. Paper to be presented at PSA2018: The 26th Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Nov. 1-4, 2018, Seattle Why Replication is Overrated Current debates about the replication crisis in psychology take it for granted that direct replication is valuable and focus their attention on questionable research practices in regard to statistical analyses. This paper takes a broader look at the notion of replication as such. It is argued that all experimentation/replication involves individuation judgments and that research in experimental psychology frequently turns on probing the adequacy of such judgments. In this vein, I highlight the ubiquity of conceptual and material questions in research, and I argue that replication is not as central to psychological research as it is sometimes taken to be. 1. Introduction: The “Replication Crisis” In the current debate about replicability in psychology, we can distinguish between (1) the question of why not more replication studies are done (e.g., Romero 2017) and (2) the question of why a significant portion (more than 60%) of studies, when they are done, fail to replicate (I take this number from the Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Debates about these questions have been dominated by two assumptions, namely, first, that it is in general desirable that scientists conduct replication studies that come as close as possible to the original, and second, that the low replication rate can often be attributed to statistical problems with many initial studies, sometimes referred to as “p-hacking” and “data-massaging.”1 1 An important player in this regard is the statistician Andrew Gelman who has been using his blog as a public platform to debate methodological problems with mainstream social psychology (http://andrewgelman.com/).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?
    Theory: State of the Art Review [Invited Paper] Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution? Olivia E. Atherton 1 , Joanne M. Chung 2 , Kelci Harris 3 , Julia M. Rohrer 4 , David M. Condon 5 , Felix Cheung 6 , Simine Vazire 7 , Richard E. Lucas 8 , M. Brent Donnellan 8, Daniel K. Mroczek 1,9 , Christopher J. Soto 10 , Stephen Antonoplis 11 , Rodica Ioana Damian 12 , David C. Funder 13 , Sanjay Srivastava 5 , R. Chris Fraley 14, Hayley Jach 7 , Brent W. Roberts 14,15 , Luke D. Smillie 7 , Jessie Sun 16 , Jennifer L. Tackett 9 , Sara J. Weston 5 , K. Paige Harden 17,18 , Katherine S. Corker 19 [1] Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. [2] Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Mississauga , Canada. [3] Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. [4] Department of Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. [5] Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA. [6] Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. [7] School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. [8] Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. [9] Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. [10] Department of Psychology, Colby College, Waterville, ME, USA. [11] Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. [12] Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. [13] Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA. [14] Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA. [15] Hector Research Institute of Education and Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • The Statistical Crisis in Science: How Is It Relevant to Clinical Neuropsychology?∗ 1. Introduction
    The statistical crisis in science: How is it relevant to clinical neuropsychology?∗ Andrew Gelmany and Hilde M. Geurtsz 2 Jan 2017 Abstract There is currently increased attention to the statistical (and replication) crisis in science. Biomedicine and social psychology have been at the heart of this crisis, but similar problems are evident in a wide range of fields. We discuss three examples of replication challenges from the field of social psychology and some proposed solutions, and then consider the applicability of these ideas to clinical neuropsychology. In addition to procedural developments such as pre- registration and open data and criticism, we recommend that data be collected and analyzed with more recognition that each new study is a part of a learning process. The goal of improv- ing neuropsychological assessment, care, and cure is too important to not take good scientific practice seriously. 1. Introduction In the last few years psychology and other experimental sciences have been rocked with what has been called a replication crisis. Recent theoretical and experimental results have cast doubt on what previously had been believed to be solid findings in various fields (for examples, see Begley and Ellis, 2012, Button et al., 2013, Baker, 2016, Dumas-Mallet et al., 2016, Ioannidis and Panagiotou, 2011). Here we focus on psychology, a field in which big steps have been made to try to address the crisis. Where do we refer to when we speak of the statistical crisis in science? From the theoretical direction a close examination of the properties of hypothesis testing has made it clear that conven- tional “statistical significance” does not necessarily provide a strong signal in favor of scientific claims (Cohen, 1994, Ioannidis, 2005, Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn, 2011, Francis, 2013, Button et al., 2013, Gelman and Carlin, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a More Robust and Replicable Science of Infant Development
    Towards a more robust and replicable science of infant development Michael C. Frank Department of Psychology, Stanford University Please address correspondence to: Michael C. Frank, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305. [email protected]. Towards a more robust and replicable science of infant development If you scroll through the table of contents of Infant Behavior and Development ten years ​ ​ from now, what mix of articles should you find? If the past predicts the future, most articles will be empirical reports: one or a series of experiments conducted at a single site, typically investigating a novel phenomenon or with a new take on a previous experimental paradigm. On the other hand, based on recent changes in psychology more generally, we might expect a broader range of articles. Some might still be new empirical reports from a single laboratory; but others might be larger-scale collaborative studies; still others will be confirmatory replication research; and others will be new methodological and statistical innovations. These changes have been triggered by a host of different factors, but two threads stand out. The first was a recognition that many of the analytic practices followed by psychologists could substantially inflate the probability of a spurious finding being reported (Simmons, Nelson, ​ & Simonsohn, 2011). The second was initial experimental evidence for the low rate of ​ replicability – finding the same conclusions from a new dataset – in a sample of high-profile psychology findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). These two initial threads have become ​ ​ part of a rich fabric of discussion surrounding the nature of scientific practices and their consequences for the robustness of the research literature (Munafò et al., 2017).
    [Show full text]