心理学期刊上的复制和统计报告实践的快照

A. A. Imam, Melissa Frate
{"title":"心理学期刊上的复制和统计报告实践的快照","authors":"A. A. Imam, Melissa Frate","doi":"10.1080/15021149.2019.1680179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Current efforts started in 2012 by the Association for Psychological Science (APS) appear to be different from previous arguments against null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST), which remained largely rhetorical without specific actions for compliance by researchers in psychology. The APS advocacy involves specific promising implementation tactics. The present study examined the impact of those efforts on replication and statistical reporting practices in four psychology journals from 2011 and 2015. The results showed that amidst increased reporting of NHST statistics in 2015 compared to 2011 and an absence of power reporting in the behavioral journals, there was increased reporting of actual replications in Psychological Science, paradoxically surpassing Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, of CIs in all four journals, and of error bars on graphs in Cognition and Behavioural Processes. These trends suggest need for additional efforts at propagating the APS initiatives to ensure greater impact in the broader psychological community. Additionally, psychologists from all domains need to become advocates of best practices for sustainable impact.","PeriodicalId":37052,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Behavior Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A snapshot look at replication and statistical reporting practices in psychology journals\",\"authors\":\"A. A. Imam, Melissa Frate\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15021149.2019.1680179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Current efforts started in 2012 by the Association for Psychological Science (APS) appear to be different from previous arguments against null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST), which remained largely rhetorical without specific actions for compliance by researchers in psychology. The APS advocacy involves specific promising implementation tactics. The present study examined the impact of those efforts on replication and statistical reporting practices in four psychology journals from 2011 and 2015. The results showed that amidst increased reporting of NHST statistics in 2015 compared to 2011 and an absence of power reporting in the behavioral journals, there was increased reporting of actual replications in Psychological Science, paradoxically surpassing Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, of CIs in all four journals, and of error bars on graphs in Cognition and Behavioural Processes. These trends suggest need for additional efforts at propagating the APS initiatives to ensure greater impact in the broader psychological community. Additionally, psychologists from all domains need to become advocates of best practices for sustainable impact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Behavior Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Behavior Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2019.1680179\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Behavior Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2019.1680179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目前由心理科学协会(APS)于2012年开始的努力似乎与之前反对零假设统计检验(NHST)的论点不同,后者在很大程度上停留在口头上,没有具体的行动让心理学研究人员遵守。APS倡导包括具体的有希望的实施策略。本研究调查了2011年至2015年四份心理学期刊上这些努力对复制和统计报告实践的影响。结果显示,与2011年相比,2015年NHST统计数据的报道有所增加,而行为学期刊缺乏权力报告,但《心理科学》杂志的实际重复报道却有所增加,矛盾地超过了《行为实验分析杂志》、所有四种期刊的ci和《认知与行为过程》图表的误差柱。这些趋势表明,需要进一步努力宣传APS倡议,以确保在更广泛的心理学界产生更大的影响。此外,所有领域的心理学家都需要成为可持续影响最佳实践的倡导者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A snapshot look at replication and statistical reporting practices in psychology journals
ABSTRACT Current efforts started in 2012 by the Association for Psychological Science (APS) appear to be different from previous arguments against null hypothesis statistical testing (NHST), which remained largely rhetorical without specific actions for compliance by researchers in psychology. The APS advocacy involves specific promising implementation tactics. The present study examined the impact of those efforts on replication and statistical reporting practices in four psychology journals from 2011 and 2015. The results showed that amidst increased reporting of NHST statistics in 2015 compared to 2011 and an absence of power reporting in the behavioral journals, there was increased reporting of actual replications in Psychological Science, paradoxically surpassing Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, of CIs in all four journals, and of error bars on graphs in Cognition and Behavioural Processes. These trends suggest need for additional efforts at propagating the APS initiatives to ensure greater impact in the broader psychological community. Additionally, psychologists from all domains need to become advocates of best practices for sustainable impact.
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
European Journal of Behavior Analysis
European Journal of Behavior Analysis Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
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