Meta-psychology最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Preregistration specificity and adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies and cross-disciplinary comparison 预注册的特异性和坚持性：预注册赌博研究回顾与跨学科比较

Meta-psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.15626/mp.2021.2909

R. Heirene, Debi A. LaPlante, Eric R. Louderback, Brittany Keen, Marjan Bakker, A. Serafimovska, Sally M. Gainsbury

{"title":"Preregistration specificity and adherence: A review of preregistered gambling studies and cross-disciplinary comparison","authors":"R. Heirene, Debi A. LaPlante, Eric R. Louderback, Brittany Keen, Marjan Bakker, A. Serafimovska, Sally M. Gainsbury","doi":"10.15626/mp.2021.2909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2021.2909","url":null,"abstract":"Study preregistration is one of several “open science” practices (e.g., open data, preprints) that researchers use to improve the transparency and rigour of their research. As more researchers adopt preregistration as a regular practice, examining the nature and content of preregistrations can help identify the strengths and weaknesses of current practices. The value of preregistration, in part, relates to the specificity of the study plan and the extent to which investigators adhere to this plan. We identified 53 preregistrations from the gambling studies field meeting our predefined eligibility criteria and scored their level of specificity using a 23-item protocol developed to measure the extent to which a clear and exhaustive preregistration plan restricts various researcher degrees of freedom (RDoF; i.e., the many methodological choices available to researchers when collecting and analysing data, and when reporting their findings). We also scored studies on a 32-item protocol that measured adherence to the preregistered plan in the study manuscript. We found gambling preregistrations had low specificity levels on most RDoF. However, a comparison with a sample of cross-disciplinary preregistrations (N = 52; Bakker et al., 2020) indicated that gambling preregistrations scored higher on 12 (of 29) items. Thirteen (65%) of the 20 associated published articles or preprints deviated from the protocol without declaring as much (the mean number of undeclared deviations per article was 2.25, SD = 2.34). Overall, while we found improvements in specificity and adherence over time (2017-2020), our findings suggest the purported benefits of preregistration—including increasing transparency and reducing RDoF—are not fully achieved by current practices. Using our findings, we provide 10 practical recommendations that can be used to support and refine preregistration practices.","PeriodicalId":496599,"journal":{"name":"Meta-psychology","volume":"130 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141695181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Investigating Heterogeneity in (Social) Media Effects: Experience-Based Recommendations 调查（社交）媒体效应的异质性：基于经验的建议

Meta-psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI: 10.15626/mp.2022.3649

Patti M. Valkenburg, Ine Beyens, L. Keijsers

{"title":"Investigating Heterogeneity in (Social) Media Effects: Experience-Based Recommendations","authors":"Patti M. Valkenburg, Ine Beyens, L. Keijsers","doi":"10.15626/mp.2022.3649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15626/mp.2022.3649","url":null,"abstract":"We recently introduced a new, unified approach to investigate the effects of social media use on well-being. Using experience sampling methods among sizeable samples of respondents, our unified approach combines the strengths of nomothetic methods of analysis (e.g., mean comparisons, regression models), which are suited to understand group averages and generalize to populations, with idiographic methods of analysis (e.g., N=1 time series analyses), which are suitable to assess the effects of social media use on each single person (i.e., person-specific effects). Our approach challenges existing knowledge of media effects based on the nomothetic-only approach. As with many innovations, our approach has raised questions. In this article, we discuss our experience with our unified media effects approach that we have been building since 2018. We will explain what our approach exactly entails and what it requires. For example, how many observations are needed per person? Which methods did we employ to assess the meaningfulness of variation around average effects? How can we generalize our findings to our target populations? And how can our person-specific results aid policy decisions? Finally, we hope to answer questions of colleagues who are interested in replicating, extending, or building on our work.","PeriodicalId":496599,"journal":{"name":"Meta-psychology","volume":"16 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141703424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Re-analysis of a meta-analysis about tryptophan and depression 重新分析色氨酸与抑郁症的荟萃分析

Meta-psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-03 DOI: 10.15626/mp.2023.3716

Martin Plöderl

引用次数: 0