赌博研究结果报告和解释中的潜在偏见来源

IF 1.3 Q4 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
P. Delfabbro, Daniel L. King, A. Blaszczynski
{"title":"赌博研究结果报告和解释中的潜在偏见来源","authors":"P. Delfabbro, Daniel L. King, A. Blaszczynski","doi":"10.4309/jgi.2020.45.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, increasing attention has been directed to specific problems confronting the social sciences. These concerns have included not only well-documented difficulties in replicating major research findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), but also problems regarding the nature of the scientific process itself (Chambers, 2017). A number of these concerns have been articulated by Chambers (2017) in his book The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology. This book was written not only to highlight the potential causes of the ‘‘replication crisis,’’ but also to call attention to important sources of bias and unreliability in social science research. Chambers provided a detailed account of the numerous ways in which the validity and reliability of research can be compromised. Certain of these ‘‘sins’’ were generally self-evident, and included fraud (e.g., the fabrication of data) and the withholding of data from independent scrutiny. Other practices, however, were more subtle. Examples here included the practice of massing or ‘‘data tuning’’ until it yields the results required; ‘‘HARKing,’’ in which the study’s hypotheses are reframed after the results are known; and various forms of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ in which data are analysed or collected to ensure statistical significance. Common examples of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ Chambers observed, included the selective addition of cases to a sample to obtain significance; selective non-statistically-justified removal of cases to increase effects; and the use of multiple analytical test strategies until one yields significance.","PeriodicalId":45414,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gambling Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potential sources of bias in the reporting and interpretation of gambling research findings\",\"authors\":\"P. Delfabbro, Daniel L. King, A. Blaszczynski\",\"doi\":\"10.4309/jgi.2020.45.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last decade, increasing attention has been directed to specific problems confronting the social sciences. These concerns have included not only well-documented difficulties in replicating major research findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), but also problems regarding the nature of the scientific process itself (Chambers, 2017). A number of these concerns have been articulated by Chambers (2017) in his book The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology. This book was written not only to highlight the potential causes of the ‘‘replication crisis,’’ but also to call attention to important sources of bias and unreliability in social science research. Chambers provided a detailed account of the numerous ways in which the validity and reliability of research can be compromised. Certain of these ‘‘sins’’ were generally self-evident, and included fraud (e.g., the fabrication of data) and the withholding of data from independent scrutiny. Other practices, however, were more subtle. Examples here included the practice of massing or ‘‘data tuning’’ until it yields the results required; ‘‘HARKing,’’ in which the study’s hypotheses are reframed after the results are known; and various forms of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ in which data are analysed or collected to ensure statistical significance. Common examples of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ Chambers observed, included the selective addition of cases to a sample to obtain significance; selective non-statistically-justified removal of cases to increase effects; and the use of multiple analytical test strategies until one yields significance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Gambling Issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Gambling Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2020.45.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gambling Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4309/jgi.2020.45.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的十年里,人们越来越关注社会科学面临的具体问题。这些担忧不仅包括复制主要研究成果的困难(开放科学合作,2015),还包括科学过程本身的性质问题(Chambers,2017)。钱伯斯(2017)在其著作《心理学的七宗罪》中阐述了其中的一些担忧。写这本书不仅是为了强调“复制危机”的潜在原因,也是为了引起人们对社会科学研究中偏见和不可靠性的重要来源的关注。钱伯斯详细介绍了研究的有效性和可靠性可能受到损害的多种方式。其中某些“内幕”通常是不言自明的,包括欺诈(例如,伪造数据)和隐瞒独立审查的数据。然而,其他做法则更为微妙。这里的例子包括聚集或“数据调整”的实践,直到产生所需的结果HARKing,”,其中研究的假设是在结果已知后重新定义的;以及各种形式的“叠加”,即分析或收集数据以确保统计显著性。钱伯斯观察到,“惯用手法”的常见例子包括在样本中选择性添加病例以获得显著性;选择性非统计学上合理的病例切除以增加疗效;以及使用多种分析测试策略,直到其中一种策略产生显著性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Potential sources of bias in the reporting and interpretation of gambling research findings
Over the last decade, increasing attention has been directed to specific problems confronting the social sciences. These concerns have included not only well-documented difficulties in replicating major research findings (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), but also problems regarding the nature of the scientific process itself (Chambers, 2017). A number of these concerns have been articulated by Chambers (2017) in his book The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology. This book was written not only to highlight the potential causes of the ‘‘replication crisis,’’ but also to call attention to important sources of bias and unreliability in social science research. Chambers provided a detailed account of the numerous ways in which the validity and reliability of research can be compromised. Certain of these ‘‘sins’’ were generally self-evident, and included fraud (e.g., the fabrication of data) and the withholding of data from independent scrutiny. Other practices, however, were more subtle. Examples here included the practice of massing or ‘‘data tuning’’ until it yields the results required; ‘‘HARKing,’’ in which the study’s hypotheses are reframed after the results are known; and various forms of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ in which data are analysed or collected to ensure statistical significance. Common examples of ‘‘p-hacking,’’ Chambers observed, included the selective addition of cases to a sample to obtain significance; selective non-statistically-justified removal of cases to increase effects; and the use of multiple analytical test strategies until one yields significance.
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
Journal of Gambling Issues
Journal of Gambling Issues SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
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