ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2016
Reevaluating excess success in psychological science.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to Francis: Replicability, false alarms, and walking through doorways.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Confirming the appearance of excess success: Reply to van Boxtel and Koch (2016).Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2016Article
- Implications of "Too Good to Be True" for Replication, Theoretical Claims, and Experimental Design: An Example Using Prominent Studies of Racial Bias.Frontiers in psychology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Francis (Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 21, 1180-1187, 2014) recently claimed that 82 % of articles with four or more experiments published in Psychological Science between 2009 and 2012 cannot be trusted. We critique Francis' analysis and point out the dependence of his approach on including the appropriate experiments and significance tests. We focus on one of the articles (van Boxtel & Koch, in Psychological Science, 23(4), 410-418, 2012) flagged by Francis and show that the inappropriate inclusion of experiments and tests have led Francis to mistakenly flag this article. We found that decisions about whether to include certain tests potentially affect 34 of the 44 articles analyzed by Francis. We further performed p-curve analyses on the articles discussed in Francis' analysis. We found that 9 of 44 studies showed significant evidential value, 11 studies showed insufficient evidential value, and 1 study showed evidence of p-hacking. Our reevaluation is important, because some researchers may have gained the false impression that none of the quoted articles in Psychological Science can be trusted (as stated by Francis). The analysis by Francis is most likely insufficient to warrant this conclusion for some articles and certainly is insufficient with respect to the study by van Boxtel and Koch (Psychological Science, 23, 410-418, 2012).
Indexed as
Identifiers
26873831What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.