拟合度高就是复制的证据不足:通过事先预测的相似性检查提高严谨性。

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Assessment Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1177/10731911241234118
Wes Bonifay, Sonja D Winter, Hanamori F Skoblow, Ashley L Watts
{"title":"拟合度高就是复制的证据不足:通过事先预测的相似性检查提高严谨性。","authors":"Wes Bonifay, Sonja D Winter, Hanamori F Skoblow, Ashley L Watts","doi":"10.1177/10731911241234118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Replication provides a confrontation of psychological theory, not only in experimental research, but also in model-based research. Goodness of fit (GOF) of the original model to the replication data is routinely provided as meaningful evidence of replication. We demonstrate, however, that GOF obscures important differences between the original and replication studies. As an alternative, we present Bayesian prior predictive similarity checking: a tool for rigorously evaluating the degree to which the data patterns and parameter estimates of a model replication study resemble those of the original study. We apply this method to original and replication data from the National Comorbidity Survey. Both data sets yielded excellent GOF, but the similarity checks often failed to support close or approximate empirical replication, especially when examining covariance patterns and indicator thresholds. We conclude with recommendations for applied research, including registered reports of model-based research, and provide extensive annotated R code to facilitate future applications of prior predictive similarity checking.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"170-189"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Good Fit Is Weak Evidence of Replication: Increasing Rigor Through Prior Predictive Similarity Checking.\",\"authors\":\"Wes Bonifay, Sonja D Winter, Hanamori F Skoblow, Ashley L Watts\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911241234118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Replication provides a confrontation of psychological theory, not only in experimental research, but also in model-based research. Goodness of fit (GOF) of the original model to the replication data is routinely provided as meaningful evidence of replication. We demonstrate, however, that GOF obscures important differences between the original and replication studies. As an alternative, we present Bayesian prior predictive similarity checking: a tool for rigorously evaluating the degree to which the data patterns and parameter estimates of a model replication study resemble those of the original study. We apply this method to original and replication data from the National Comorbidity Survey. Both data sets yielded excellent GOF, but the similarity checks often failed to support close or approximate empirical replication, especially when examining covariance patterns and indicator thresholds. We conclude with recommendations for applied research, including registered reports of model-based research, and provide extensive annotated R code to facilitate future applications of prior predictive similarity checking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"170-189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241234118\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241234118","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不仅在实验研究中,而且在基于模型的研究中,复制都是对心理学理论的一种对抗。原始模型与复制数据的拟合优度(GOF)通常被作为有意义的复制证据。然而,我们证明,GOF 掩盖了原始研究与复制研究之间的重要差异。作为一种替代方法,我们提出了贝叶斯先验预测相似性检查:一种严格评估模型复制研究的数据模式和参数估计与原始研究相似程度的工具。我们将这种方法应用于全国疾病调查的原始数据和复制数据。两个数据集都产生了极好的 GOF,但相似性检查往往不能支持接近或近似的经验复制,尤其是在检查协方差模式和指标阈值时。最后,我们对应用研究提出了建议,包括基于模型研究的注册报告,并提供了大量附有注释的 R 代码,以促进先验预测相似性检查在未来的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Good Fit Is Weak Evidence of Replication: Increasing Rigor Through Prior Predictive Similarity Checking.

Replication provides a confrontation of psychological theory, not only in experimental research, but also in model-based research. Goodness of fit (GOF) of the original model to the replication data is routinely provided as meaningful evidence of replication. We demonstrate, however, that GOF obscures important differences between the original and replication studies. As an alternative, we present Bayesian prior predictive similarity checking: a tool for rigorously evaluating the degree to which the data patterns and parameter estimates of a model replication study resemble those of the original study. We apply this method to original and replication data from the National Comorbidity Survey. Both data sets yielded excellent GOF, but the similarity checks often failed to support close or approximate empirical replication, especially when examining covariance patterns and indicator thresholds. We conclude with recommendations for applied research, including registered reports of model-based research, and provide extensive annotated R code to facilitate future applications of prior predictive similarity checking.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信