{"title":"使用广义顺序限制信息标准从不同的研究中为中心理论收集证据。","authors":"R M Kuiper, Eli-Boaz Clapper","doi":"10.1037/met0000755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In social and behavioral science, the gold standard for scientific evidence is finding results that are consistent across independent studies. To summarize results from multiple studies, parameter estimates are conventionally aggregated with meta-analysis. However, having comparable estimates is limited to studies that share the same context and design, which often means that a wealth of information remains unexploited. This article proposes generalized order-restricted information criterion (approximation) (GORIC[A]) evidence aggregation: an alternative and/or complementary statistical tool for the aggregation of evidence across studies. Rather than aggregating parameter estimates to come to an overall estimate, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation combines relative support for a shared central theory (i.e., evidence) and quantifies the overall relative support. It does so using GORIC(A), an information criterion that can evaluate both equality and inequality/order restrictions. GORIC(A) can be applied to a single study, and this GORIC(A) evidence can be aggregated over multiple studies, irrespective of how the research is conducted. The method is validated with a simulation study that shows that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation is not affected by study-design heterogeneity and can be used for evidence synthesis. This implies that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation can successfully combine relative support for a central theory over a widely diverse set of studies. This increases the available information to investigate a theory. Furthermore, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation aids in robustness and confidence of results because it can take into account the results of all type of studies that (can) examine the central theory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aggregating evidence for a central theory from diverse studies using the generalized order-restricted information criterion.\",\"authors\":\"R M Kuiper, Eli-Boaz Clapper\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In social and behavioral science, the gold standard for scientific evidence is finding results that are consistent across independent studies. To summarize results from multiple studies, parameter estimates are conventionally aggregated with meta-analysis. However, having comparable estimates is limited to studies that share the same context and design, which often means that a wealth of information remains unexploited. This article proposes generalized order-restricted information criterion (approximation) (GORIC[A]) evidence aggregation: an alternative and/or complementary statistical tool for the aggregation of evidence across studies. Rather than aggregating parameter estimates to come to an overall estimate, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation combines relative support for a shared central theory (i.e., evidence) and quantifies the overall relative support. It does so using GORIC(A), an information criterion that can evaluate both equality and inequality/order restrictions. GORIC(A) can be applied to a single study, and this GORIC(A) evidence can be aggregated over multiple studies, irrespective of how the research is conducted. The method is validated with a simulation study that shows that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation is not affected by study-design heterogeneity and can be used for evidence synthesis. This implies that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation can successfully combine relative support for a central theory over a widely diverse set of studies. This increases the available information to investigate a theory. Furthermore, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation aids in robustness and confidence of results because it can take into account the results of all type of studies that (can) examine the central theory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000755\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000755","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在社会和行为科学中,科学证据的黄金标准是在独立研究中找到一致的结果。为了总结多个研究的结果,参数估计通常通过荟萃分析进行汇总。然而,具有可比性的估计仅限于具有相同背景和设计的研究,这通常意味着大量信息仍未得到利用。本文提出了广义顺序限制信息标准(近似)(GORIC[A])证据聚合:一种用于跨研究证据聚合的替代和/或补充统计工具。GORIC(A)证据聚合不是将参数估计聚合到一起得到一个总体估计,而是将对共享中心理论(即证据)的相对支持度结合起来,并量化总体相对支持度。它使用GORIC(A)来实现这一点,GORIC(A)是一种可以评估相等和不相等/顺序限制的信息标准。GORIC(A)可以应用于单个研究,并且无论研究如何进行,该GORIC(A)证据可以在多个研究中汇总。模拟研究验证了该方法,表明GORIC(a)证据聚合不受研究设计异质性的影响,可用于证据合成。这意味着GORIC(A)证据聚合可以成功地将对一个中心理论的相对支持结合在广泛不同的研究中。这增加了研究理论的可用信息。此外,GORIC(A)证据汇总有助于结果的稳健性和置信度,因为它可以考虑所有类型的研究的结果,可以检验中心理论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
Aggregating evidence for a central theory from diverse studies using the generalized order-restricted information criterion.
In social and behavioral science, the gold standard for scientific evidence is finding results that are consistent across independent studies. To summarize results from multiple studies, parameter estimates are conventionally aggregated with meta-analysis. However, having comparable estimates is limited to studies that share the same context and design, which often means that a wealth of information remains unexploited. This article proposes generalized order-restricted information criterion (approximation) (GORIC[A]) evidence aggregation: an alternative and/or complementary statistical tool for the aggregation of evidence across studies. Rather than aggregating parameter estimates to come to an overall estimate, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation combines relative support for a shared central theory (i.e., evidence) and quantifies the overall relative support. It does so using GORIC(A), an information criterion that can evaluate both equality and inequality/order restrictions. GORIC(A) can be applied to a single study, and this GORIC(A) evidence can be aggregated over multiple studies, irrespective of how the research is conducted. The method is validated with a simulation study that shows that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation is not affected by study-design heterogeneity and can be used for evidence synthesis. This implies that GORIC(A) evidence aggregation can successfully combine relative support for a central theory over a widely diverse set of studies. This increases the available information to investigate a theory. Furthermore, GORIC(A) evidence aggregation aids in robustness and confidence of results because it can take into account the results of all type of studies that (can) examine the central theory. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.