ArticleBMC psychology2016
Psychology, replication & beyond.
Article in BMC psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- g versus c: comparing individual and collective intelligence across two meta-analyses.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Six of one, half a dozen of the other? Examining measurement properties of different potentially traumatic event polyvictimization operationalizations using a multiverse analysis framework.Development and psychopathology · 2025Article
- The Alternative Factors Leading to Replication Crisis: Prediction and Evaluation.Evaluation review · 2025Article
- Ruminative thinking mediates the effects of exposure to adverse life events on psychotic-like experiences.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The quantitative paradigm and the nature of the human mind. The replication crisis as an epistemological crisis of quantitative psychology in view of the ontic nature of the psyche.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Brain Signatures of Embodied Semantics and Language: A Consensus Paper.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Remarkably reproducible psychological (memory) phenomena in the classroom: some evidence for generality from small-N research.BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Corroborating behavioral evidence for the interplay of representational richness and semantic control in semantic word processing.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review.BMC psychology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern psychology is apparently in crisis and the prevailing view is that this partly reflects an inability to replicate past findings. If a crisis does exists, then it is some kind of 'chronic' crisis, as psychologists have been censuring themselves over replicability for decades. While the debate in psychology is not new, the lack of progress across the decades is disappointing. Recently though, we have seen a veritable surfeit of debate alongside multiple orchestrated and well-publicised replication initiatives. The spotlight is being shone on certain areas and although not everyone agrees on how we should interpret the outcomes, the debate is happening and impassioned. The issue of reproducibility occupies a central place in our whig history of psychology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.