ArticlePloS one2017
Estimating the evidential value of significant results in psychological science.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute effects of cocoa flavanols on visual working memory: maintenance and updating.European journal of nutrition · 2022Trial
- Staying informed without a cost: No effect of positive news media on stress reactivity, memory and affect in young adults.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Intersensory attention deficits in schizophrenia relate to ongoing sensorimotor beta oscillations.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Article
- 'Doctor, I am so stressed out!' A descriptive study of biological, psychological, and socioemotional markers of stress in individuals who self-identify as being 'very stressed out' or 'zen'.Neurobiology of stress · 2022Article
- The impact of joint attention on the sound-induced flash illusions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021Article
- The Differential Impact of Lockdown Measures Upon Migrant and Female Psychiatric Patients - A Cross-Sectional Survey in a Psychiatric Hospital in Berlin, Germany.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The quest for an optimal alpha.PloS one · 2019Article
- High cognitive load enhances the susceptibility to non-speech audiovisual illusions.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantifying evidence is an inherent aim of empirical science, yet the customary statistical methods in psychology do not communicate the degree to which the collected data serve as evidence for the tested hypothesis. In order to estimate the distribution of the strength of evidence that individual significant results offer in psychology, we calculated Bayes factors (BF) for 287,424 findings of 35,515 articles published in 293 psychological journals between 1985 and 2016. Overall, 55% of all analyzed results were found to provide BF > 10 (often labeled as strong evidence) for the alternative hypothesis, while more than half of the remaining results do not pass the level of BF = 3 (labeled as anecdotal evidence). The results estimate that at least 82% of all published psychological articles contain one or more significant results that do not provide BF > 10 for the hypothesis. We conclude that due to the threshold of acceptance having been set too low for psychological findings, a substantial proportion of the published results have weak evidential support.
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.